2015Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library (US Army Combined Arms Center)Requires access

A Campaign Of Ropes:: An Analysis Of The Duke Of Wellington’s Practice Of Military Art During The Peninsular War, 1808 To 1814

J. K. Hendrick

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to study the practice of military art at the operational level of war. The story of Wellington's ultimate success against Napoleon's Marshals was selected as a case study as it seemed rich in the application of mental agility to achieve an asymmetrical military advantage in a theater of war. As military theory recognizes two general types of military art, classical strategy and operational art, the research question was constructed to determine if Wellington practiced pure classic strategy, or an early/transitional form of operational art. In order to provide a basis of analysis, the essential elements of both classic strategy and operational art are next defined. The history of classic strategy is outlined, then the theory of Clausewitz and Jomini used to define its four basic elements. The practice of operational art is then traced, from its inception by U.S. Grant during the American Civil War, to Soviet operational theory developed in the 1920's. The theory of Dr. James Schneider, a primary interpreter of both Grant and the Soviets, provides the eight essential elements of operational art. To round out the section on military art, U.S. operational doctrine is outlined and discussed. Like most military officers, Wellington was a creature of his own experience, therefore a chapter is dedicated to the lessons he learned as a young officer in India. The following chapter is dedicated to a study of the Peninsular War. As the research question deals with both the operational and strategic levels of war, Wellington's tactics are neglected in favor of his campaign concepts and execution. Analysis determines that in, three out of five campaigns, Wellington practiced a pure form of classic strategy. Unfortunately, these campaigns all ended in failure. In his two successful campaigns, Wellington was able to gain an asymmetrical advantage over the French by the incorporation of four of the eight elements of operational art into his operational concept. Although he lacked the technological necessities required to practice full-fledged operational art, it is concluded that Wellington practiced a transitional style of warfare that can be termed an early form of operational art.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The purpose of this paper was to study the practice of military art at the operational level of war. The story of Wellington's ultimate success against Napoleon's Marshals was selected as a case study as it seemed rich in the application of mental agility to achieve an asymmetrical military advantage in a theater of war. As military theory recognizes two general types of military art, classical strategy and operational art, the research question was constructed to determine if Wellington practiced pure classic strategy, or an early/transitional form of operational art. In order to provide a basis of analysis, the essential elements of both classic strategy and operational art are next defined. The history of classic strategy is outlined, then the theory of Clausewitz and Jomini used to define its four basic elements. The practice of operational art is then traced, from its inception by U.S. Grant during the American Civil War, to Soviet operational theory developed in the 1920's. The theory of Dr. James Schneider, a primary interpreter of both Grant and the Soviets, provides the eight essential elements of operational art. To round out the section on military art, U.S. operational doctrine is outlined and discussed. Like most military officers, Wellington was a creature of his own experience, therefore a chapter is dedicated to the lessons he learned as a young officer in India. The following chapter is dedicated to a study of the Peninsular War. As the research question deals with both the operational and strategic levels of war, Wellington's tactics are neglected in favor of his campaign concepts and execution. Analysis determines that in, three out of five campaigns, Wellington practiced a pure form of classic strategy. Unfortunately, these campaigns all ended in failure. In his two successful campaigns, Wellington was able to gain an asymmetrical advantage over the French by the incorporation of four of the eight elements of operational art into his operational concept. Although he lacked the technological necessities required to practice full-fledged operational art, it is concluded that Wellington practiced a transitional style of warfare that can be termed an early form of operational art.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The purpose of this paper was to study the practice of military art at the operational level of war. The story of Wellington's ultimate success against Napoleon's Marshals was selected as a case study as it seemed rich in the application of mental agility to achieve an asymmetrical military advantage in a theater of war. As military theory recognizes two general types of military art, classical strategy and operational art, the research question was constructed to determine if Wellington practiced pure classic strategy, or an early/transitional form of operational art. In order to provide a basis of analysis, the essential elements of both classic strategy and operational art are next defined. The history of classic strategy is outlined, then the theory of Clausewitz and Jomini used to define its four basic elements. The practice of operational art is then traced, from its inception by U.S. Grant during the American Civil War, to Soviet operational theory developed in the 1920's. The theory of Dr. James Schneider, a primary interpreter of both Grant and the Soviets, provides the eight essential elements of operational art. To round out the section on military art, U.S. operational doctrine is outlined and discussed. Like most military officers, Wellington was a creature of his own experience, therefore a chapter is dedicated to the lessons he learned as a young officer in India. The following chapter is dedicated to a study of the Peninsular War. As the research question deals with both the operational and strategic levels of war, Wellington's tactics are neglected in favor of his campaign concepts and execution. Analysis determines that in, three out of five campaigns, Wellington practiced a pure form of classic strategy. Unfortunately, these campaigns all ended in failure. In his two successful campaigns, Wellington was able to gain an asymmetrical advantage over the French by the incorporation of four of the eight elements of operational art into his operational concept. Although he lacked the technological necessities required to practice full-fledged operational art, it is concluded that Wellington practiced a transitional style of warfare that can be termed an early form of operational art.

Key concepts: Operational level of war, Military tactics, Officer, Military doctrine, Military theory, Doctrine, Military science, Military strategy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Campaign Of Ropes:: An Analysis Of The Duke Of Wellington’s Practice Of Military Art During The Peninsular War, 1808 To 1814 — Research Paper | ScholarLens