Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. MahanMahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
History
Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan
Mahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
Naval art and science; Naval strategy; Sea-power
There is a simple but very fruitful remark of a Swiss military writer,
that every military line may be conceived as having three parts, the
middle and the two ends, or flanks. As sound principle requires that
military effort should not be distributed along the whole of an enemy’s
position,—unless in the unusual case of overwhelming superiority,—but
that distinctly superior numbers should be concentrated upon a limited
portion of it, this idea of a threefold division aids materially in
considering any given situation. One third, or two thirds, of an enemy’s
line may be assailed, but very seldom the whole; and everything may
depend upon the choice made for attack. Now the British frontier, which
the United States was to assail, extended from Montreal on the east to
Detroit on the west. Its three parts were: Montreal and the St. Lawrence
on the east, or left flank; Ontario in the middle, centering at
Kingston; and Erie on the right; the strength of the British position in
the last-named section being at Detroit and Malden, because they
commanded the straits upon which the Indian tribes depended for access
to the east. Over against the British positions named lay those of the
United States. Given in the same order, these were: Lake Champlain, and
the shores of Ontario and of Erie, centering respectively in the naval
stations at Sackett’s Harbor and Presque Isle.
Accepting these definitions, which are too obvious to admit of dispute,
what considerations should have dictated to the United States the
direction of attack; the one, or two, parts out of the three, on which
effort should be concentrated? The reply, as a matter of abstract,
accepted, military principle, is certain. Unless very urgent reasons to
the contrary exist, strike at one end rather than at the middle, because
both ends can come up to help the middle against you quicker than one
end can get to help the other; and, as between the two ends, strike at
the one upon which the enemy most depends for reinforcements and
supplies to maintain his strength. Sometimes this decision presents
difficulties. Before Waterloo, Wellington had his own army as a center
of interest; on his right flank the sea, whence came supplies and
reinforcements from England; on his left the Prussian army, support by
which was imminently necessary. On which flank would Napoleon throw the
weight of his attack? Wellington reasoned, perhaps through national
bias, intensified by years of official dependence upon sea support, that
the blow would fall upon his right, and he strengthened it with a body
of men sorely needed when the enemy came upon his left, in overwhelming
numbers, seeking to separate him from the Prussians.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account