Bonaparte Only Stans 5' 6"

Am I the only one who thinks wars and battles are the least interesting thing about history?

4 Likes

GIF by Shalita Grant

5 Likes

The Princess Bride Sicilian GIF

2 Likes

I had a Swedish colleague who told me about the Swedish Empire and Carl XII. And how he decided to invade Russia. I asked how that went. She gave a wry grin and said “Only three people have ever decided to invade Russia from Europe. And it always goes the same way. He was the first to learn the mistake.”

So it’s not like Napoleon had no precedent to draw on. Hitler: even more stark warnings ignored.

7 Likes

Counterpoint:

(but seriously, I get it: military history is not everyone’s cup of tea, even if it very much mine. To each his own!)

1 Like

Krule John C Reilly GIF - Krule John C Reilly What GIFs

1 Like

I will never forget the look on one of my senior colleague’s face when I told him I taught the entirety of Western Civ I and never mentioned a single battle. He was horrified. “How can you even teach it that way?”

“Well, how many women do you discuss as main characters with agency, rather than as armpieces of men?”

That was fun.

11 Likes

I fluv you for this.

Clearly not, as @anon61221983 has been saying that exact same thing since before this post became its’ own thread.

5 Likes

This seems pretty central to this discussion, so far I haven’t seen you offer a measure of military ability beyond “land won vs. lost” or political genius apart from"consolidated power most effectively." @chenille and @anon61221983 have made pretty compelling arguments that these are outmoded and counterproductive measures of either effectiveness or genius in either realm.

In the current age, hopefully bith military leaders and politicians should be measured on a broad rubric ofnsuccess. A military leader might, among many goals, seek to avoid as much loss of life and suffering as possible, spend as little treasure as possible on warmaking, and successfully maintain whatever armed forces are mecessary without disrupting civilian life and autonomy. A politician’s effectiveness should be measured by tge improvement in the quality of life they were able to push forward by navigating political systems.

5 Likes

That was 5D chess: La Grande Armée had to be used as a distraction so that Charles Joseph Minard could pull off his sweeping victory in data visualization.

7 Likes

Okay, looks like an explanation might clear this up:
(Video should be cued to 10m17s.)

 

 

As to You are X and I claim my five pounds!:

1 Like

I’d argue that some of the measurements of military genius would be the ability to develop and employ innovation (technological, tactical, etc.), capable administration and control of logistics, development of subordinates, and being able to achieve the goals through either application of force or its threat. That’s a back of the envelope description, so I’m sure there is plenty of room around the edges for improvement.

I’d argue that ability to achieve and maintain power and to implement one’s goals is the mark of political success without regard to morality, and the mark of political genius is to do so at scale. Same caveat as before.

And, just as importantly, the question of what one DOES with these military and/or political skills is a separate question that depends on all the factors you and others have been mentioning. These questions are not exclusive of one another, but they are distinct, and I think is being lost in the shuffle.

And of course there are other, more humane and moral areas of competence other than military conquest. No one would seriously suggest otherwise, but I don’t think it is intellectually honest or historically useful to eliminate that specific skill from recognizing genius where it exists.

I very much agree that there are and should be additional ways to measure genius, but I disagree with grafting a moral requirement on all of them. Terrible people who do terrible things are nonetheless sometimes incredibly smart and capable people who do monumentally terrible things. It’s all well and good to believe that war is harmful to humans and other living things and should be phased out, but it remains a relatively important human institution for the time being, and sometimes people are interested in studying it.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.