However, like other activities in the world, the various parts that make up a whole in a war are connected to each other. Every cause, even a small cause, will have an effect on the outcome of the entire war. The final result has changed, although this change is small. Similarly, every different means will inevitably affect the ultimate goal.
Therefore, as long as a phenomenon has value, one should continue to study the consequences caused by the cause; similarly, people can not only test the means according to the most direct purpose, but also regard this purpose as the means to achieve the highest end. To be tested, from this, a series of mutually subordinate purposes are explored until the necessity of the purpose is no longer in doubt and no longer needs to be tested. In many cases, especially when it comes to important measures of decisive significance, it should be studied until the ultimate goal, that is, the goal that can directly lead to peace.
Obviously, in such a process of tracing back to the source, every time a new stage is reached, people must find a new foothold when making judgments. Therefore, the same method may be suitable from a lower standpoint, but it may have to be discarded from a higher standpoint.
When investigating a certain military action critically, the research on the causes of certain things is often carried out in conjunction with the purpose-based testing method, because only through the research of the causes can we find something that can be the object of testing.
Of course, this kind of traceability from bottom to top and top to bottom will inevitably encounter many difficulties. Because the farther away the event is from the cause, the more various situations that affect it, and the greater the influence. Therefore, the farther the cause that people are discussing from the event, the more other reasons that need to be considered at the same time, and they must be distinguished How will the cause affect the event? If one finds the reason for the failure of a certain battle, then also finds the reason why the failure affected the whole battle; however, this is only part of the reason, because, in the face of different situations, other factors will also have an impact on the final outcome of the war. The results have an impact.
The improvement of foothold will also increase the complexity of inspection methods, because the higher the goal, the more methods must be used to achieve this goal. The ultimate goal of war is what all armies are eager to pursue. Therefore, what must be done and what is possible to achieve this goal should be investigated and studied.
In this way, the scope of investigation will be greatly increased, and the difficulties will also increase, and people will be more prone to confusion and panic. Because, in the face of things that have not happened but are very likely to happen, they have to investigate and make many corresponding assumptions.
In March 1797, when Napoleon led the Italian army to attack Archduke Karl from the Tagliamanto River, Napoleon's purpose was to force him to make a decisive battle before the reinforcements that Archduke Karl was looking forward to arrived from the Rhine. If only from the direct purpose, this method should be chosen very correctly, and the result also proves this point. At that time, because Archduke Carl’s forces were very weak, he made only one tentative resistance in the Tagliamanto River. When he found that the enemy’s forces were so strong and the action was so determined, he hurriedly withdrew from the battlefield and gave up. Pass position in the Norris Alps. With this lucky victory, what can Napoleon achieve? Not only can he direct the heart of the Austrian Empire and assist the two Rhine Legions led by Moreau and Osher in the offensive, but he can also gain close ties with them. Napoleon conceived this way when he formulated his battle plan, and facts have proved that his decision was correct. However, if you look at the battle from a higher standpoint, that is, from the perspective of the French governorate, Napoleon's choice to cross the Norris Alps is undoubtedly an overly risky action. Because if the Austrians formed a strong reserve army from the reinforcements transferred by the Rhine in Stähemark, then Archduke Karl would be able to attack the Italian Legion. If so, not only would the Italian Legion be completely annihilated, but the entire battle would also be destroyed. Fiasco. When Napoleon arrived in Villach, he was soberly aware of this, so he signed the Leoben Armistice Agreement very happily.
If you criticize from a higher standpoint, and know that the Austrians have no reserve army between the Duke Carl's army and Vienna, then Vienna will also be threatened because of the pressing on of the Italian army.
If Napoleon knew that there was no military cover in the Austrian capital, and that Steiermark still had a decisive advantage over Archduke Karl, then his rapid attack on the heart of Austria would be a purposeful action. As for the value of action, it depends on how much the Austrians value Vienna. If the Austrians attach great importance to Vienna, even at the expense of accepting Napoleon’s peace conditions, then the attack on Vienna can be regarded as the ultimate goal; if Napoleon learns this from some kind of intelligence, then the criticism can end here. the end. If there are still doubts about this point, then the only way is to continue to criticize from a higher standpoint and further propose: If the Austrians abandon Vienna and continue to retreat to the country's vast hinterland, how will the situation develop? Obviously, this question cannot be answered if the possible incidents of the two armies in the Rhine region have not been studied in advance. In the case of the French army's absolute superiority, the problem of winning is not very big; but this will create a new problem. What purpose will the French governorship want to achieve with this victory? Do you want to take advantage of the victory to pursue the Austrian Empire, thereby completely destroying this powerful country, or do you just want to occupy most of the Austrian Empire's land as a bargaining chip for concluding a treaty? In order to infer the choices made by the French governor, the only way to find out the possible results of these two situations. Assuming that the results of the study show that, in order to completely defeat the Austrian state, the French force is far from enough, so that the result of doing so will definitely cause a fundamental change in the entire situation. Even if you only want to occupy a large area of Austria, it will expose the French The difficult situation of insufficient strength, then, this result will definitely affect the status of the Italian Legion, and make people no longer have great hopes for it. Undoubtedly, this is the reason why Napoleon, knowing that Duke Carl is isolated and helpless, signed the Campoformio contract with him. This contract caused the Austrian nation to lose a part of the region that was difficult to regain even after the most successful battle, and did not pay a greater price. However, if the French did not consider the following two issues, they would not be able to sign the Campoformio contract, which is of little benefit, and it would not be possible to sign this contract as the goal of advancement. The first question is the Austrian’s evaluation of the above two results; although both of these situations may give the Austrians a final victory, in both cases, that is, when the two sides continue to fight, the Austrians All will pay a huge sacrifice, but as long as the contract is signed with less stringent conditions, this sacrifice can be avoided. In this situation, do the Austrians think it is worth the sacrifice? The second question is that AustriaWill the Liberal government use its own advantages to persist in resistance until the final victory? Has it considered what the other party will get in the end? Will it not lose the courage to fight because of a temporary defeat
Thinking about the first question is not without any meaning, but has very important practical significance. Whenever people propose extreme plans, they will take this into consideration, and it is precisely because of this consideration that people often abandon such plans.
The second question must also be considered, because people are not fighting against invisible and intangible abstract objects, but against concrete people who must be vigilant at all times. Napoleon, who was daring about this point, must have understood that, that is to say, he firmly believed that his prestige could be the first to win. It was this belief in victory that prompted him to attack Moscow in 1812. However, he miscalculated that time because of the number His reputation has declined in the second major battle. In 1797, his prestige was in full swing, and people have not yet discovered the power of his tenacious resistance to the end. Nevertheless, if it were not for his premonition that he might fail and signed the little-benefiting Campo Formio contract, then in 1797 he The power of may cause him to get the opposite result.
The investigation of this battle example can end here, because as an example, this investigation has fully explained: when people trace the final goal, that is, when people take decisive measures to achieve the final goal, the scope and complexity involved are so extensive and complicated. How great the difficulty will be. It can be seen from here that in addition to theoretical understanding of things, talents also have a huge impact. To clarify the interconnections between things, and to distinguish what is really important in complex events, the main Still rely on natural talent.
In addition to examining the methods that have been used, critical examination must also examine all the methods that may be used. This also requires natural talent. Therefore, in the investigation, possible means must be put forward. If this is not possible, there is no reason to blame the means used. Although in most cases, such possible tactics are rarely proposed, it is undeniable that proposing these tactics that are not used in actual combat is not a simple analysis of existing things, but a unique creation. This kind of creation cannot be stipulated by the existing theories, it can only be obtained through intellectual activity through a wealth of practical experience.
Those few feasible, very simple tactics must not be regarded as the performance of great genius. Someone often regards the tactic of "turning around the enemy's position" as an expression of great genius. We do not agree with this view; nevertheless, this kind of independent creation is still necessary, and this kind of action mainly shows Critical investigation value. On July 30, 1796, Napoleon decided to abandon the siege of Mantua and confronted Ulmsel who came to rescue. He concentrated his forces and defeated all Ulmsel troops separated by Lake Garda and the Mincho River. This tactic can be regarded as the most reliable and effective way to obtain brilliant results. In fact, he did get the victory he expected, and when the enemy came to clear the siege later, he used this method and won a more glorious victory. At this point, Napoleon was praised in unison.
At that time, if it had not completely abandoned the idea of besieging Mantua, Napoleon would not have taken the above action on July 30, because this kind of action could not keep the baggage, and in this battle he had no way to get a second set of baggage. In fact, the subsequent siege has evolved into a simple siege. Although Napoleon won a huge victory in the field, the fortress that can be captured by only seven or eight days has taken as long as six months.
Once the critics were unable to propose a better way to deal with reinforcements, and thought this was an unavoidable pity. In the siege and defensive circle, the method of confronting the enemy who came to rescue has long been criticized and despised by everyone, so that this method was finally completely forgotten. This kind of tactics often worked in the time of Louis XIV, but after a hundred years, nobody cares about it, and it has become a forgotten corner of the world. How great is the influence of the custom of loving the new and disgusting the old! If this method is considered to be of value, then further research is not difficult to see that when Napoleon is besieging the world's most elite infantry set in the defense circle with strong fortifications, he does not need to be afraid of Ulmsey. The fifty thousand reinforcements led by Er, because even a tentative attack is very difficult for them. We do not intend to demonstrate our views in depth here, but we feel that the above statement is sufficient to illustrate the value of this approach. As for whether Napoleon considered these issues at the time, we don't want to extrapolate, but according to his memoirs and other published materials, there is no clue that he had considered this approach. In all the comments of later generations, this method has not been mentioned, which shows that it has been completely forgotten by people. Now, there is no great credit for reintroducing this method, because as long as people can get rid of the influence of fashionable opinions, it is enough to do it. However, it is very meaningful to propose this method and analyze it with the method used by Napoleon at the same time. Regardless of the result of the comparison, this must be analyzed in criticism.
In February 1814, when Napoleon defeated Blücher’s army in the battles of Etoges, Chambeau, and Montmirais, he ignored Blücher and directed his finger at Schwartz. Zenberg and defeated his army in Montero and Morman. Everyone admired Napoleon very much, because he mobilized his main force to make use of the mistakes of the coalition forces to divide the offensive and win by surprise. In these excellent battles, although Napoleon failed to save the final defeat, but in the eyes of most people, the failure is not Napoleon's fault. So far, no one has proposed: What would happen if Napoleon continued to attack Blücher and forced him to the Rhine? We can be sure that under such circumstances, the situation will definitely undergo a fundamental change. The main force of the coalition forces may not enter Paris, but will retreat to the east bank of the Rhine. We do not require others to agree with our views, but since someone proposes another tactic, it should be explored when criticizing it, and this is something that no military strategist will oppose.
Compared with the tactics proposed in the previous example, the tactics proposed here are more easily thought of. Unfortunately, people are always accustomed to following some existing opinions and lack a fair attitude, so they are ignored.
Although some critics realize that better tactics should be proposed to replace the blamed tactics, the tactics they put forward are only subjective, without pointing out corresponding arguments. Therefore, not everyone can be convinced of the tactics they put forward, while others can also put forward other tactics. This will lead to endless debates without any arguments. Examples of this type appear in many military works.
As long as the advantages of the proposed method have not reached a convincing level, it must be explained. The so-called explanation is to compare the characteristics of the two methods in combination with the purpose. If you can explain the problem with simple and straightforward principles, then the argument will inevitably stop, or another conclusion can be drawn from it, otherwise the argument will continue endlessly.
If we are not satisfied with a better tactic proposed in the above example, and want to further prove that it is more appropriate not to point the finger at Schwarzenberg, but to continue chasing Blücher, then we must give the following reasons as a reference.
First, under normal circumstances, it is more advantageous to continue to attack in one direction than to attack the west, because the latter tactic is a waste of time; in addition, when the enemy has suffered heavy losses and morale is reduced, make full use of the advantages that have been gained to continuously launch attacks. , It is easier to win.
Second, although Blücher’s military strength is weaker than Schwarzenberg, his courageous and decisive character makes him the most important enemy and a pivotal figure among them.
Third, at that time Blücher’s troops had already suffered a very serious loss. Napoleon had a very large advantage. It would not be a problem to push Blücher to the Rhine, because Blücher’s reinforcements in this direction All are vulnerable.