[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
admits of being established; if, avoiding all false pretensions and irrelevant display of scientific forms and
historical parallels, it had kept close to the subject, and gone hand in hand with those who must conduct
affairs in the field by their own natural genius.
CHAPTER VI. ON EXAMPLES
EXAMPLES from history make everything clear, and furnish the best description of proof in the empirical
sciences. This applies with more force to the Art of War than to any other. General Scharnhorst, whose
handbook is the best ever written on actual War, pronounces historical examples to be of the first importance,
and makes an admirable use of them himself. Had he survived the War in which he fell,[*] the fourth part of
his revised treatise on artillery would have given a still greater proof of the observing and enlightened spirit
in which he sifted matters of experience.
But such use of historical examples is rarely made by theoretical writers; the way in which they more
commonly make use of them is rather calculated to leave the mind unsatisfied, as well as to offend the
understanding. We therefore think it important to bring specially into view the use and abuse of historical
examples.
[*] General Scharnhorst died in 1813, of a wound received in the battle of Bautzen or Grosz
Gorchen--EDITOR.
Unquestionably the branches of knowledge which lie at the foundation of the Art of War come under the
denomination of empirical sciences; for although they are derived in a great measure from the nature of
things, still we can only learn this very nature itself for the most part from experience; and besides that, the
practical application is modified by so many circumstances that the effects can never be completely learnt
from the mere nature of the means.
The effects of gunpowder, that great agent in our military activity, were only learnt by experience, and up to
this hour experiments are continually in progress in order to investigate them more fully. That an iron ball to
which powder has given a velocity of 1000 feet in a second, smashes every living thing which it touches in its
course is intelligible in itself; experience is not required to tell us that; but in producing this effect how many
hundred circumstances are concerned, some of which can only be learnt by experience! And the physical is
not the only effect which we have to study, it is the moral which we are in search of, and that can only be
ascertained by experience; and there is no other way of learning and appreciating it but by experience. In the
middle ages, when firearms were first invented, their effect, owing to their rude make, was materially but
trifling compared to what it now is, but their effect morally was much greater. One must have witnessed the
firmness of one of those masses taught and led by Buonaparte, under the heaviest and most unintermittent
cannonade, in order to understand what troops, hardened by long practice in the field of danger, can do, when
by a career of victory they have reached the noble principle of demanding from themselves their utmost
efforts. In pure conception no one would believe it. On the other hand, it is well known that there are troops
in the service of European Powers at the present moment who would easily be dispersed by a few cannon
shots.
CHAPTER VI. ON EXAMPLES 81
On War
But no empirical science, consequently also no theory of the Art of War, can always corroborate its truths by
historical proof; it would also be, in some measure, difficult to support experience by single facts. If any
means is once found efficacious in War, it is repeated; one nation copies another, the thing becomes the
fashion, and in this manner it comes into use, supported by experience, and takes its place in theory, which
contents itself with appealing to experience in general in order to show its origin, but not as a verification of
its truth.
But it is quite otherwise if experience is to be used in order to overthrow some means in use, to confirm what
is doubtful, or introduce something new; then particular examples from history must be quoted as proofs.
Now, if we consider closely the use of historical proofs, four points of view readily present themselves for the
purpose.
First, they may be used merely as an EXPLANATION of an idea. In every abstract consideration it is very
easy to be misunderstood, or not to be intelligible at all: when an author is afraid of this, an exemplification
from history serves to throw the light which is wanted on his idea, and to ensure his being intelligible to his
reader.
Secondly, it may serve as an APPLICATION of an idea, because by means of an example there is an
opportunity of showing the action of those minor circumstances which cannot all be comprehended and
explained in any general expression of an idea; for in that consists, indeed, the difference between theory and
experience. Both these cases belong to examples properly speaking, the two following belong to historical
proofs.
Thirdly, a historical fact may be referred to particularly, in order to support what one has advanced. This is in
all cases sufficient, if we have ONLY to prove the POSSIBILITY of a fact or effect.
Lastly, in the fourth place, from the circumstantial detail of a historical event, and by collecting together
several of them, we may deduce some theory, which therefore has its true PROOF in this testimony itself.
For the first of these purposes all that is generally required is a cursory notice of the case, as it is only used
partially. Historical correctness is a secondary consideration; a case invented might also serve the purpose as
well, only historical ones are always to be preferred, because they bring the idea which they illustrate nearer
to practical life.
The second use supposes a more circumstantial relation of events, but historical authenticity is again of
secondary importance, and in respect to this point the same is to be said as in the first case.
For the third purpose the mere quotation of an undoubted fact is generally sufficient. If it is asserted that
fortified positions may fulfil their object under certain conditions, it is only necessary to mention the position
of Bunzelwitz[*] in support of the assertion.
[*] Frederick the Great's celebrated entrenched camp in 1761.
But if, through the narrative of a case in history, an abstract truth is to be demonstrated, then everything in the
case bearing on the demonstration must be analysed in the most searching and complete manner; it must, to a
certain extent, develop itself carefully before the eyes of the reader. The less effectually this is done the
weaker will be the proof, and the more necessary it will be to supply the demonstrative proof which is
wanting in the single case by a number of cases, because we have a right to suppose that the more minute
details which we are unable to give neutralise each other in their effects in a certain number of cases.
CHAPTER VI. ON EXAMPLES 82
On War
If we want to show by example derived from experience that cavalry are better placed behind than in a line
with infantry; that it is very hazardous without a decided preponderance of numbers to attempt an enveloping
movement, with widely separated columns, either on a field of battle or in the theatre of war--that is, either
tactically or strategically--then in the first of these cases it would not be sufficient to specify some lost
battles in which the cavalry was on the flanks and some gained in which the cavalry was in rear of the
infantry; and in the tatter of these cases it is not sufficient to refer to the battles of Rivoli and Wagram, to the
attack of the Austrians on the theatre of war in Italy, in 1796, or of the French upon the German theatre of [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl chiara76.opx.pl
admits of being established; if, avoiding all false pretensions and irrelevant display of scientific forms and
historical parallels, it had kept close to the subject, and gone hand in hand with those who must conduct
affairs in the field by their own natural genius.
CHAPTER VI. ON EXAMPLES
EXAMPLES from history make everything clear, and furnish the best description of proof in the empirical
sciences. This applies with more force to the Art of War than to any other. General Scharnhorst, whose
handbook is the best ever written on actual War, pronounces historical examples to be of the first importance,
and makes an admirable use of them himself. Had he survived the War in which he fell,[*] the fourth part of
his revised treatise on artillery would have given a still greater proof of the observing and enlightened spirit
in which he sifted matters of experience.
But such use of historical examples is rarely made by theoretical writers; the way in which they more
commonly make use of them is rather calculated to leave the mind unsatisfied, as well as to offend the
understanding. We therefore think it important to bring specially into view the use and abuse of historical
examples.
[*] General Scharnhorst died in 1813, of a wound received in the battle of Bautzen or Grosz
Gorchen--EDITOR.
Unquestionably the branches of knowledge which lie at the foundation of the Art of War come under the
denomination of empirical sciences; for although they are derived in a great measure from the nature of
things, still we can only learn this very nature itself for the most part from experience; and besides that, the
practical application is modified by so many circumstances that the effects can never be completely learnt
from the mere nature of the means.
The effects of gunpowder, that great agent in our military activity, were only learnt by experience, and up to
this hour experiments are continually in progress in order to investigate them more fully. That an iron ball to
which powder has given a velocity of 1000 feet in a second, smashes every living thing which it touches in its
course is intelligible in itself; experience is not required to tell us that; but in producing this effect how many
hundred circumstances are concerned, some of which can only be learnt by experience! And the physical is
not the only effect which we have to study, it is the moral which we are in search of, and that can only be
ascertained by experience; and there is no other way of learning and appreciating it but by experience. In the
middle ages, when firearms were first invented, their effect, owing to their rude make, was materially but
trifling compared to what it now is, but their effect morally was much greater. One must have witnessed the
firmness of one of those masses taught and led by Buonaparte, under the heaviest and most unintermittent
cannonade, in order to understand what troops, hardened by long practice in the field of danger, can do, when
by a career of victory they have reached the noble principle of demanding from themselves their utmost
efforts. In pure conception no one would believe it. On the other hand, it is well known that there are troops
in the service of European Powers at the present moment who would easily be dispersed by a few cannon
shots.
CHAPTER VI. ON EXAMPLES 81
On War
But no empirical science, consequently also no theory of the Art of War, can always corroborate its truths by
historical proof; it would also be, in some measure, difficult to support experience by single facts. If any
means is once found efficacious in War, it is repeated; one nation copies another, the thing becomes the
fashion, and in this manner it comes into use, supported by experience, and takes its place in theory, which
contents itself with appealing to experience in general in order to show its origin, but not as a verification of
its truth.
But it is quite otherwise if experience is to be used in order to overthrow some means in use, to confirm what
is doubtful, or introduce something new; then particular examples from history must be quoted as proofs.
Now, if we consider closely the use of historical proofs, four points of view readily present themselves for the
purpose.
First, they may be used merely as an EXPLANATION of an idea. In every abstract consideration it is very
easy to be misunderstood, or not to be intelligible at all: when an author is afraid of this, an exemplification
from history serves to throw the light which is wanted on his idea, and to ensure his being intelligible to his
reader.
Secondly, it may serve as an APPLICATION of an idea, because by means of an example there is an
opportunity of showing the action of those minor circumstances which cannot all be comprehended and
explained in any general expression of an idea; for in that consists, indeed, the difference between theory and
experience. Both these cases belong to examples properly speaking, the two following belong to historical
proofs.
Thirdly, a historical fact may be referred to particularly, in order to support what one has advanced. This is in
all cases sufficient, if we have ONLY to prove the POSSIBILITY of a fact or effect.
Lastly, in the fourth place, from the circumstantial detail of a historical event, and by collecting together
several of them, we may deduce some theory, which therefore has its true PROOF in this testimony itself.
For the first of these purposes all that is generally required is a cursory notice of the case, as it is only used
partially. Historical correctness is a secondary consideration; a case invented might also serve the purpose as
well, only historical ones are always to be preferred, because they bring the idea which they illustrate nearer
to practical life.
The second use supposes a more circumstantial relation of events, but historical authenticity is again of
secondary importance, and in respect to this point the same is to be said as in the first case.
For the third purpose the mere quotation of an undoubted fact is generally sufficient. If it is asserted that
fortified positions may fulfil their object under certain conditions, it is only necessary to mention the position
of Bunzelwitz[*] in support of the assertion.
[*] Frederick the Great's celebrated entrenched camp in 1761.
But if, through the narrative of a case in history, an abstract truth is to be demonstrated, then everything in the
case bearing on the demonstration must be analysed in the most searching and complete manner; it must, to a
certain extent, develop itself carefully before the eyes of the reader. The less effectually this is done the
weaker will be the proof, and the more necessary it will be to supply the demonstrative proof which is
wanting in the single case by a number of cases, because we have a right to suppose that the more minute
details which we are unable to give neutralise each other in their effects in a certain number of cases.
CHAPTER VI. ON EXAMPLES 82
On War
If we want to show by example derived from experience that cavalry are better placed behind than in a line
with infantry; that it is very hazardous without a decided preponderance of numbers to attempt an enveloping
movement, with widely separated columns, either on a field of battle or in the theatre of war--that is, either
tactically or strategically--then in the first of these cases it would not be sufficient to specify some lost
battles in which the cavalry was on the flanks and some gained in which the cavalry was in rear of the
infantry; and in the tatter of these cases it is not sufficient to refer to the battles of Rivoli and Wagram, to the
attack of the Austrians on the theatre of war in Italy, in 1796, or of the French upon the German theatre of [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]