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
If such a chase follow a battle, it can scarcely fail that the weaker
party—the retreating party—is also distressed by crippled ships, which
he may be forced to abandon—or fight. Strenuous, unrelaxing pursuit is
therefore as imperative after a battle as is courage during it. Great
political results often flow from correct military action; a fact which
no military commander is at liberty to ignore. He may very well not know
of those results; it is enough to know that they may happen, and nothing
can excuse his losing a point which by exertion he might have scored.
Napoleon, says Jomini, never forgave the general who in 1796, by resting
his troops a couple of hours, failed to get between an Austrian division
and Mantua, in which it was seeking refuge, and by his neglect found it.
The failure of Admiral de Tourville to pursue vigorously the defeated
Dutch and English fleet, after the battle of Beachy Head, in 1690,
caused that victory to be indecisive, and helped to fasten the crown of
England on the head of a Dutch King, who was the soul of the alliance
against France. Slackness in following up victory had thus a decisive
influence upon the results of the whole war, both on the continent and
the sea. I may add, it has proved injurious to the art of naval
strategy, by the seeming confirmation it has given to the theory of the
“fleet in being.” It was not the beaten and crippled English and Dutch
“fleet in being” that prevented an invasion of England. It was the
weakness or inertness of Tourville, or the unreadiness of the French
transports.
Similarly, the refusal of Admiral Hotham to pursue vigorously a beaten
French fleet in 1795, unquestionably not only made that year’s campaign
indecisive, but made possible Napoleon’s Italian campaign of 1796, from
which flowed his whole career and its effects upon history. The same
dazzling career received its sudden mortal stab when, in the height of
his crushing advance in Spain, with its capital in his hands, at the
very moment when his vast plans seemed on the eve of accomplishment, a
more enterprising British leader, Sir John Moore, moved his petty army
to Sahagun, on the flank of Napoleon’s communications between France and
Madrid. The blow recoiled upon Moore, who was swept as by a whirlwind to
Coruña, and into the sea; but Spain was saved. The Emperor could not
retrieve the lost time and opportunity. He could not return to Madrid in
person, but had to entrust to several subordinates the task which only
his own supreme genius could successfully supervise. From the military
standpoint, his downfall dates from that day. The whole career of
Wellington, to Waterloo, lay in the womb of Moore’s daring conception.
But for that, wrote Napier, the Peninsular War would not have required a
chronicler.
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