When choosing the first method, it is generally enough to simply cite a case, because only one aspect of the case is used here. Here, the historical authenticity of the case is not the most important, and it is not impossible to cite a fictitious example. However, the biggest advantage of historical examples is that they are more real, and the viewpoints they illustrate are closer to real life.
When choosing the second method, the narrative case requires more detail. The correctness of the event here is still secondary, but the same as the previous method, the necessary explanation should be made.
The third way, as long as the accurate facts are cited. If someone puts forward a point of view that under certain conditions, the fortified position can withstand the enemy's attack and play its due role, then the example of the Bunzerwicz position is sufficient to prove this point of view.
If the narration of a certain historical fact is to prove a certain general truth, then everything related to this argument must be explained accurately and accurately, and the historical facts must be presented to the readers in a precise and detailed manner. The worse this is done, the weaker the persuasiveness, and the more facts are needed to supplement it. Because there are reasons to make people believe that when the specific circumstances of a certain fact cannot be better expressed, a certain number of other facts can be cited to supplement the explanation.
If you want to use experience to prove that it is better to deploy cavalry behind the infantry than to deploy the cavalry on the flanks, then it is far from enough to mention only a few failures when the cavalry is deployed on the flanks and the victories gained by deploying the cavalry behind the infantry; It proves that in the absence of absolute superiority, whether in a battle or in a theater, tactically and strategically, it is very dangerous to divide the forces to surround the enemy in depth. If you only list the Battle of Rivoli or Wagram The battle, or just to list the Austrian attack on the Italian theater in 1796, and the French attack on the German theater in the same year is far from enough. In order to illustrate this point, the specific circumstances at that time must also be described together, which is more conducive to prove the disadvantages of the above configuration and form of offense. From this, it can be concluded to what extent these forms should be denied. This point must be clear, otherwise the total denial will be detrimental to the truth no matter what.
As we said earlier, when it is impossible to tell a fact in detail, other examples can be used to supplement the proof, but it is undeniable that this is a sophistry method that is often used by people. Some people do not try to figure out one fact, but are content to cite three or four examples superficially, creating an illusion that seems very convincing. You know, for those recurring things, even cite a bunch of examples is meaningless, because others can easily cite a bunch of opposite examples to refute. If someone cites a bunch of battles where multiple offensives were defeated disastrously, then we can also cite a bunch of battles where multiple offensives were won. It can be seen that there is no point in doing so, and no conclusion can be drawn.
It can be seen from the above situation that the phenomenon of abuse of instances is very easy to appear.
If you do not describe an event in full detail, but simply tell it, it is as if you look at something from a distance, and all parts cannot be distinguished clearly. From different angles, the external shape is also the same. In fact, such an example can be proved by both opposing parties. Some people think that the several battles under the command of Dawn are successful examples of foresight, caution and thoughtfulness, while others regard them as examples of indecision and hesitation. In 1797, Napoleon crossed the Norris Alps, which can be seen as a brave and decisive performance, or as a hasty and reckless behavior; in 1812, Napoleon’s strategic failure can be said to be the result of more than bravery. It can also be said to be the result of lack of courage. The emergence of these different opinions is not difficult to understand, because these different opinions are caused by people's different perspectives on things. But these opposing opinions are not all correct, and some opinions are necessarily wrong.
We must thank the outstanding Fouquier, who left us many valuable historical materials in his memoirs. More importantly, he not only left us many rare historical materials, but he was the first to use them. The material makes abstract theoretical concepts have a very useful connection with real life, and the historical facts he cited can become further explanations and explanations of his arguments. Despite this, it is difficult for him to achieve the goal he usually pursues in front of modern readers without preconceptions: to prove theoretical truths with historical facts. Therefore, although he narrated historical events in more detail, this is far from explaining the problem, because these conclusions of his are derived from the internal connection of the events.
In addition, historical facts have another shortcoming: if some readers do not know a certain historical event very well, or have no impression at all, then they will not be able to understand the author’s true intentions from it. In this case, the reader can only have two choices, either blindly admire or refuse to accept it at all.
In order to prove one's point of view with historical facts, it is very difficult to reproduce historical events before the readers. In this way, the author will be constrained by the material, just as limited by time and space. But we believe that in order to prove a new argument, or to clarify a questionable point of view, it is more useful to describe an event in detail than to present ten events in general. The main disadvantage of quoting historical facts plainly is not that the authors mistakenly believe that this method can prove certain arguments, but because the authors have never understood these historical facts seriously. They do not know that such superficial and light treatment of historical facts will only produce countless Wrong views and fabricated theories. If the author realizes that the new viewpoint he put forward cannot be proved by a certain historical event, but should be naturally produced from the close connection of things, then there will be no more wrong viewpoints and fabricated theories. .
If people recognize the above-mentioned difficulties and at the same time realize the necessity of the above-mentioned requirements, then they will know that well-known and studied recent battle cases will always be the best historical materials.
In the old age, due to different conditions and different methods of warfare, to us, the educational and practical significance of the events of that era were relatively weak. In addition, war history is also like other historical events. With the passage of time, many details that were still very clear will gradually disappear; it is like a picture, the original bright colors and vivid images gradually disappear. It becomes dim, colorless, and fuzzy, and finally only some of the remaining colors and lines are left, and these colors and lines have received special attention because of the age.
If we look at the situation of modern warfare, we will definitely find that the ones that are very close to modern warfare, at least in terms of weapons, mainly include those wars since the War of the Austrian Succession. Although all aspects of wars have changed since then, those wars are still very similar to modern wars, and we can still learn lessons from them. The War of the Spanish Succession was completely different from the modern wars, because the firearms were not perfect at that time, and the cavalry was still the main unit. The farther the age, the poorer the content of the war history, the less detailed records, and the less useful it is. Regarding the history of various ethnic groups in ancient times, its usefulness must be the least, and the record is the least detailed.
Of course, these recorded historical facts are not absolutely unusable. They just don't apply to situations that must be explained in detail, and situations that dictate changes in methods of warfare. No matter how little we know about certain wars, such as the Swiss wars against the Austrians, Burgundians, and French, we can still see that for the first time in these battles, well-trained infantry is better than the most. A good cavalry is even better. When we look at the era of mercenaries roughly, we can understand how the battle plan depends on the tools used, because in any other era, the military used for combat does not have the nature of tools, and neither Will be separated from other lives of the country and people like that time. In the Second Punic War, when Hannibal had not been defeated in Italy, the Romans had already begun to attack the Carthaginians in Spain and Africa. This method of drawing people’s attention was a very powerful way to attract people’s attention. The object of study to learn the lesson, because the country and the army at that time used mercenaries as the basis of indirect resistance, which is very familiar to everyone.
But the more details are involved, the less common these details are. We must never look for typical historical examples and experiences from history, because we cannot evaluate related events or use them. To prove the means and circumstances that have now been completely changed.
It is a pity that writers in various periods have a tendency to cite historical examples. We don't want to say how much vanity and deception are involved here, but we don't see any sincerity and behavior to help and persuade others. Therefore, we can only regard quoting historical examples as a fig leaf to cover up shortcomings and mistakes.
It is indeed a great feat if you can teach others to learn warfare with historical examples like Foquier did. However, if you can first think that this can only be done with long-term combat experience, then you will definitely understand that this is a great cause that takes a lifetime of energy to achieve.
If anyone is willing to engage in this kind of business, then, I hope he can be like a believer and be prepared for this pious plan. I hope he spares no time, is not afraid of hardships and hardships, is not afraid of power, and overcomes his own inferiority and vanity, just as the French code says: speak the truth, only the truth, and completely speak the truth.