Is Von Clausewitz the best military theorist in history? Sun

>>3395514
No, that's Charles De Gaulle

>>3395514
His work tops the West Point list of military classics: https://pastebin.com/Sy6aKb39

The others on that list are worth reading as well though.

>>3395555
Have you ever read de Gaylle?

>>3395596
no, I'm just shitposting

Real men read Fuller

>>3395514
Von Clausewitz is for the most part outdated
>and an army double the size of the enemy will always win
>he ironically believed this

>>3395659
He was right tho. Quantity in the end wins.

>>3395514
You have no idea how relevant Clausewitz's ideas will be in another few hundred years as culture, technology, and political organization change. Too broad and military treatises are only useful for philosophy. Too detailed and they risk becoming outdated and outmoded.

>>3395574
>American military readz Clauzewitz
>loses every war it fights
Seems like pretty conclusive evidence to me, OP.

>>3395514
>gets BTFO by Napoleon in 19 days
>gets liberated by Russians 7 years later
>after the war, write a book basically describing Napoleon's tactics and strategies

Druly a military genius :DDDD

>>3397200
The quantity of humans is less important nowadays.

>>3397265
But >>3395659
implied, that Clausewitz was wrong from the beginning.
>The quantity of humans is less important nowadays.
It's still better to have twice the number of equipment and industry than your opponent.
Quote is taken of of context, and I guess your idea of bigger quantity was about comparison
>it's bullshit, 1000 American soldiers will defeat 2000 Somalian niggers all the time.
Bit it's about the opponent on the same technological level as you. You can win smartly some battles, but if your opponent has twice your manpower, tanks, air force, etc., and can produce them twice as fast as you, guess who will win in the end with total war in mind.

Isnt he a follower of the decisive battle doctrine? Despite writting a the book after the first ever total war?