Agree or disagree with what Howard argues determines the conduct of war above all factors?pic.twitter.com/C9KFZDmVla
-
I think I am with you here - 'conduct' here is understood so narrowly that it really removes much of the strategic layer and confines us to operations and tactics. Even then, I'd argue tactics are socially embedded, not direct extrapolations of weapons...
...but the more important objection is that there is really more to the 'conduct' of war than operations or tactics. Give the Seleucids Roman weapons, and you will not get a Roman legion, because the legion is socially embedded - not withstanding the imitation legion at Daphne.
-
-
Which quite evidently lacked the efficacy of the original.
-
Right, it will fail to describe operations or tactics as well, and much more; I think conduct has to be deconstructed so far, in the end it becomes a tautology.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.