Book notes: How Great Generals Win

 "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeperat bellum", said the Roman general Vegetius: "If you desire peace, prepare for war". What fascinates me about military history are two related things: strategy and leadership. How great commanders and generals plan their steps to attain their objective, and how they inspire and lead people towards that objective. Wars are bad, and in almost all cases represent the worst of humanity, but in many cases it also represents some of the best ideals of humanity too: loyalty, courage, sacrifice, and the willingness to fight to uphold what we believe is right and just. A war can also change the flow of human history, as I wrote in the seven battles that changed the world.

Bevin Alexander's How Great Generals Win is a short account of the leaders and strategists and discusses some common patterns of successful generals in the way they pursue their strategy:

1. Great generals do not repeat what has failed before. They do not send troops directly into a battle for which the enemy is prepared and waiting. On the contrary, they strike where they are least expected against opposition that is weak and disorganized. "The way to avoid what is strong is to strike what is weak" said Sun Tzu in the Art of War.

2. Great generals do things that break their enemy's will and resolve to fight, like Sherman did by marching through Georgia and the Carolinas, and like the Mongols did by making the enemy believe that their army was three times larger than it actually was. This also means training, development, and morale of one's own troops is equally important.

3.  Great generals pursue a "plan with branches". This is the strategy of spreading out the attacking force into multiple advancing columns that can reunite quickly when necessary. When correctly executed, this ends up scattering the opposition because they have to defend on all fronts, whereas the attacking forces have the options for surprise action, including attacking the rear (manæuvre sur les derrières: the rear maneuver, used by Napoleon many times). 

4. Technology changes the equation, but not for long: stirrups, the compound bow, gunpowder, canons, tanks, and (now) nuclear weapons gives superiority to the party possessing it, only until everyone else builds or steals the technology. But even the temporary technical advantage (Agincourt, in 1415, with the English longbow for example, or ending the first world war with the technical superiority of tanks, or the Manhattan project) is worth pursuing.

5. Great generals concentrate forces where they matter. "The nature of strategy consists of always having, even with a weaker army, more forces at the point of attack or at the point where one is being attacked than the enemy" (Hans Delbrück). This is not in contradiction to the "plan in branches", but it gives the general the prioritization they need on when and where to spread out and surprise.

Business strategy is different from war, and there is considerable temptation to equate a competitor with an enemy. But, the dynamics is different. In business, a fully informed customer is a willing participant, and what matters is a strategy of delivering value and convenience better than anyone else. 

I think the book should have included great admirals and naval battles too. Lord Nelson's unconventional thinking and planning at the Battle of Trafalgar (1805) was key to the victory there. Instead of the conventional engagement of the French fleet in a single parallel line of battle, he instead divided his fleet into two columns and approached perpendicularly, breaking up the French fleet into three and surrounding it. Nelson also had the advantage of a better trained and a more experienced naval crew.