Different positions require different knowledge
Within the scope of military activities, different positions of commanders require different knowledge. If the position is lower, the knowledge required is some narrow and specific knowledge; if the position is higher, what is required is knowledge that is broader and more general. It may not necessarily be great to let certain commanders take on the role of cavalry commander. The reverse is also true.
Although the knowledge required in war is simple, it is not so easy to use them flexibly. The knowledge required in war is relatively simple, and the knowledge involved is limited to a few problems, and only needs to be mastered. The final conclusion of the question is sufficient. However, it is not easy to be able to use this knowledge flexibly in war. Various difficulties are often encountered in wars, as we have already discussed in detail in Chapter 1. Here we do not discuss the difficulties that can only be overcome by courage, but only discuss the difficulties that can be overcome through intellectual activities. We believe that the difficulties encountered in lower positions are simple and easy. As the position improves, its The degree of difficulty has also increased. When he reaches the highest position such as commander-in-chief, for him, intellectual activities will become one of the most difficult spiritual activities for mankind.
What knowledge must be possessed in war
Although the commander-in-chief is not necessarily a knowledgeable historian, or a political commentator, he must master national affairs, and must be aware of traditional policies, current interests, and various problems that may exist, as well as those in power. Understand and make a correct evaluation. The commander-in-chief is not necessarily a meticulous character observer or a keen character analyst, but he must understand his subordinates' personalities, ways of thinking, living habits, and strengths and weaknesses. The commander does not necessarily need to know the structure of the vehicle or how to draw the artillery, but he must have the ability to correctly estimate the marching time of a column in different situations. All this knowledge cannot be obtained by relying on scientific formulas and mechanical methods. It can only be obtained by observing in ordinary times and accumulating in real life, relying on the understanding of things.
Therefore, the knowledge needed by people in high positions in military activities is obtained through a special ability in observation and thinking. As a spiritual instinct, this ability is like a bee collecting honey. Good at absorbing the essence from daily life. In addition to observation and research, this knowledge can also be obtained through life practice. Through educational life practice, although people will never be able to become characters like Newton or Euler, they can obtain outstanding inference power like Condé or Frederick.
Therefore, there is absolutely no need for us to fall into the pedantic swamp in order to obtain the intellectual factors in military activities. There is no great and outstanding commander in history who is an ordinary person with ordinary intelligence. However, some people perform very well in lower positions, but once promoted to the highest position, they tend to be mediocre because of mediocre intelligence; and some people do the same. In the position of commander-in-chief, but due to the different scope of powers, the degree of intelligence exerted will also vary.
Knowledge must become ability
Earlier we talked about what knowledge must be possessed for war. Now we have to consider another requirement. This requirement is more important for combat knowledge than for any other knowledge, that is, we must integrate knowledge and truly become our own. It is no longer an objective thing. In the activities of other fields of human beings, even if people forget the knowledge they have learned before, they can still find it in the books when they use it; even the knowledge that they use every day can be regarded as something outside of the body, without having to remember it in their minds. When the architect picks up a pen to perform complex calculations to find the load capacity of a stone, the correct result he obtained cannot be regarded as a creation of his own intelligence. First, he must search for a lot of information, and then perform calculations, and in the calculations The law used is not his own invention. It is even possible that he did not realize why he must use this method instead of that method in the calculation process. The calculation is just a pure mathematical operation. However, this will never be the case in war. In wars, people’s thinking and activities continue to react, and the objective situation is constantly changing. This requires commanders to turn knowledge into something that belongs only to themselves, use it anytime and anywhere, and quickly make winning strategies when necessary. . Therefore, the commander must completely integrate knowledge and thought into a real ability. For this reason, what an excellent military commander does is so easy in the eyes of others, it seems that everything should be attributed to his unique talent. What we call natural talents is to distinguish the talents cultivated through observation and research from this kind of talents.
After the above-mentioned research, we have clarified the mission of the combat theory and cited the method to accomplish this mission.
We used to divide combat methods into two categories: tactics and strategy. It is undoubtedly difficult to establish strategic theory, but tactical theory is relatively easy, because tactics involve limited problems, and strategically, it directly leads to peace. The purpose is endless. Of course, only the military commander needs to consider the purpose of peace, so the commander-related part of the strategy often has greater difficulties.
Therefore, strategic theory, especially the part of the theory that involves major issues, should be more of an investigation of things than tactical theory, and it should be an investigation of helping the commander understand things. This kind of understanding, once integrated with the commander's entire thinking, is enough to enable him to smoothly formulate battle plans and take actions with greater certainty, without obeying objective truth.
Military art or military science
The terms used have not yet been unified-ability and knowledge. Science is purely for the purpose of exploring knowledge, while technology is for the purpose of cultivating capabilities. People have not yet considered whether to use military art or military science as a term, and they do not know how to solve this problem. Although it is very easy. We have said in other places that knowledge and ability are different. The difference between the two is very obvious, and it is not easy to be confused. Ability is not written in the book, so technology should not be used as the title of the book. However, people have become accustomed to calling the knowledge required to master a certain technology as technical theory, or simply as technology, so they are bound to use this way to distinguish: technology refers to the purpose of cultivating creativity, such as architectural skills ; Science refers to purely exploring knowledge for the purpose, such as mathematics and astronomy. In any kind of technical theory, there will be a certain independent science, which is obvious and beyond doubt. It is worth noting that any science will contain technical factors. For example, in mathematics, the application of arithmetic and algebra is technology, but this is not the boundary between the two. Because, judging from the sum of human knowledge, although the difference between knowledge and ability is very obvious, it is difficult to separate them completely when reflected in each person.
Difficult to Separate Knowledge from Judgment--Martial Art
Thinking is an ability. When a logician draws a horizontal line to indicate that the premise, that is, the result of cognition has ended, and the judgment begins, the ability begins to play a role. In addition, knowledge through intelligence should also be counted as judgment, and it is also an ability, and the same is true for knowledge through perception. In short, if a person has only judgment but no knowledge, or only knowledge but no judgment, it is unimaginable. Because there is a certain connection between ability and knowledge. The more concretely embodied in the external form of the world, the more obvious the difference between ability and knowledge will be. We repeat that the technical field includes activities for the purpose of creation and manufacturing, while the scientific field is activities for the purpose of research and knowledge. It can be seen that military art is more appropriate and appropriate than the term military science.
The reason why we have talked so much about this issue is because these concepts are very important and indispensable. We believe that war can neither be called real technology nor real science. People often go astray because they do not realize this, and unknowingly link war with technology or science in other fields. , So many incorrect reasoning was also carried out.
People feel this, so they describe war as a craft. This approach has more harm than good, because craftsmanship is just a kind of primary technology, it obeys fixed and narrow laws. In fact, military art does have the characteristics of craftsmanship in a certain period, such as the period of the mercenary team; however, the reason for this tendency is not because of its internal reasons, but because of external factors. The history of war can prove this.
◎War is an act of human interaction
We believe that war does not belong to the realm of technology or science. It should belong to the realm of social life. War originates from a huge conflict of interests. This conflict is resolved by bloodshed. This is the reason why it is different from other conflicts. War is not so much like a certain kind of technology as it is more like a certain kind of trade. Trade is also a conflict of human interests. However, politics is closest to war, and we can think of politics as a larger-scale trade. In addition, politics is the mother body that breeds war, and the outline of war has been faintly formed in political activities, as if the attributes of biology were formed in the embryo.
the difference
The essential difference between war and technology or art is that war, which is a volitional activity, is different from technology. It only studies lifeless objects. Unlike art, it studies human spirits and emotions, which are vital and abstract. , But it is an object at the mercy of others. What war studies is an active and vigorous object. Therefore, it is easy to see that the mechanical way of thinking used in technology and science is not suitable for war; trying to find a certain fixed law similar to the material world from war will inevitably Will cause errors. However, when people established military art in the past, it was technology that was the standard. Taking art as an example is also not feasible. Because art itself lacks certain laws and principles, and the existing laws and principles are often imperfect or one-sided, they are constantly under the huge current of various opinions, feelings and habits. The ground was overwhelmed by the impact.
As for whether the conflicts between living objects that appear or disappear in war can follow general laws, and whether these laws can be used as valuable criteria for action, we will make some discussions in this article. But one thing is very clear. Like other objects that are not beyond the scope of our understanding, the spirit of research can also clarify the object of war. The inner connection can be more or less clarified, and if this is done, the theory becomes a veritable theory and can play its guiding role.
Methodism
In order to clarify the concepts of method and methodism that have played such a huge role in war, we must roughly examine the set of logical levels that govern all actions.
Law, the most universal concept is applicable to both knowledge and action. As far as the meaning of the word is concerned, it is obviously subjective and arbitrary, but it appropriately expresses what we and external things must follow. In terms of cognition, the law indicates the interaction between things and its; in terms of will, the law is a restriction on action, and it has the same effect as commands and prohibitions.
Principle, like law, is a restriction on action, but it is not equivalent to law. It has the spirit and essence of law, but it is not as rigid and fixed as law. When the complex phenomena of the real world cannot be incorporated into a rigid form by the law, the principle will give a certain degree of freedom for judgment. Because in the case where the principle cannot be applied, the problem must be solved by judgment, and the principle actually acts as a compass for the actors.
If a principle is a product of objective truth, it will be applicable to anyone; if a principle contains subjective factors and only has a certain guiding significance for the person who proposed it, then it is usually called a motto.
Rules are often understood as rules, but they have the same meaning as principles. Therefore, people often say "there are no rules without exceptions", but they do not say "there are no rules without exceptions". This shows that people have a relatively large amount of freedom when applying rules.
In another sense, the rules are also based on individual external characteristics to understand the truth hidden in the interior, and determine the action criterion that is fully consistent with this truth. The secrets of gambling and mathematical formulas belong to this rule.
Rules and codes are also provisions for specific actions. Its scope is more subtle and more specific, and this situation is not only common but also too trivial, so it is not worth setting up general rules for it.
Finally, there is method and methodism. The method is to choose a common method from a number of possible methods; Methodology is to decide actions based on a specific method, rather than based on general principles or individual rules. However, there must be a prerequisite. The various situations handled by this method are basically the same. It is impossible to be completely the same, but the same parts should be as many as possible. In other words, this method is only applicable to those The most likely scenario. Therefore, the premise of methodism is not to take individual circumstances as the criterion, but to propose a universal truth based on the probabilities of many similar circumstances. If this truth is used repeatedly in the same form, then mechanical proficiency will soon be reached, and in the end, it will even be possible to deal with things correctly without any effort.
The concept of law is superfluous for combat research, because the situation in war changes rapidly and there are no rules to follow. Even if there are certain rules, they cannot be all-encompassing. Therefore, as far as war is concerned, laws are no more useful than simple truths. As long as it can be expressed with simple concepts and words, if complicated and exaggerated concepts and words are used, it is tantamount to grandstanding, so it is illusory. In combat theory, the concept of law also does not apply to actions, because various phenomena in war are varied and extremely complex, and universal laws are meaningless to it.
If you want to formulate fixed provisions for combat theory, then principles, rules, rules, and methods are indispensable concepts, because in fixed provisions, truth must appear in crystalline form.
In the method of warfare, tactical theory is most likely to become a fixed clause. Therefore, the above concepts are the most common in tactics. For example, using cavalry to attack the enemy's infantry in a complete formation as a last resort; before the enemy enters an effective range, no weapons can be fired; during the battle, the troops should be preserved as much as possible for the final use, etc. These are all tactical principles. Although these regulations are not absolutely applicable in all occasions, the commander must keep these tactics in mind so that they can be effective at the appropriate time without delaying the fighter.
If the time of the enemy’s fire and cooking is abnormal, it can be inferred that the enemy is preparing to transfer; if the enemy intentionally exposes his troops in battle, it means preparing for a feint. This way of knowing the truth is called rules, because from these obvious special circumstances , You can infer the enemy’s intention.
If, during the battle, the enemy starts to retreat, it is a rule that the artillery should immediately fire and violently attack the enemy. Then, from this special phenomenon, the entire enemy situation can be inferred, and a rule of action can be derived from this enemy situation. This enemy situation is: the enemy intends to give up resistance and prepare to retreat. At this moment, his performance is neither fully resisting nor getting rid of us completely as in the process of retreating.