A History Of Strategy Chapter 3

2.

What was the common opinion that Machiavelli disproved in theory and in practice?

That "no quarter" was an ineffective tactic.
That democracy was superior to monarchy.
That civilians could not make successful soldiers.
That a prince should be merciful and kind.

Correct Answer

A. That civilians could not make successful soldiers.

Explanation

Machiavelli disproved the common opinion that civilians could not make successful soldiers. In his book "The Art of War," he argued that with proper training and organization, civilians could be transformed into effective soldiers. He emphasized the importance of discipline, strategy, and the use of modern weaponry. Machiavelli believed that a well-trained and disciplined army, even if composed of civilians, could be victorious in battle. He supported his theory with examples from history, such as the Roman Empire, where civilians were successfully trained to become skilled soldiers.

Rate this question:

3.

Which military element did Machiavelli underestimate?

Infantry
Cavalry
Artillery
Navy

Correct Answer

A. Artillery

Explanation

Machiavelli underestimated the importance and effectiveness of artillery in military operations. He may have believed that infantry, cavalry, and navy were the key elements of a successful military, but failed to recognize the significant impact that artillery could have on the battlefield. Artillery provides long-range firepower and the ability to break through fortifications, making it a crucial component in modern warfare. Its destructive power and ability to support ground forces make it an essential military element that should not be underestimated.

Rate this question:

4.

What distinguished Montecuccoli from previous military writers?

He was the first to turn siegecraft into a science.
He believed war to be the natural state of Man.
He was the first to imagine aerial warfare.
He looked at war as something waged by states, not people.

Correct Answer

A. He looked at war as something waged by states, not people.

Explanation

Montecuccoli distinguished himself from previous military writers by looking at war as something waged by states, not people. This suggests that he focused on the political and strategic aspects of warfare, rather than the individual actions of soldiers. This perspective may have been a departure from previous military writers who may have focused more on the tactics and personal experiences of soldiers in battle. Montecuccoli's emphasis on the state's role in warfare could have contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of military strategy and its impact on political outcomes.

Rate this question:

5.

In what century were tactics clearly distinguished from strategy?

The eighteenth century.
The twentieth century.
The seventeenth century.
The fifteenth century.

Correct Answer

A. The eighteenth century.

Explanation

In the eighteenth century, there was a significant shift in military thinking and practice, leading to a clear distinction between tactics and strategy. Prior to this century, the terms were often used interchangeably or were not well-defined. However, during the eighteenth century, military theorists such as Maurice de Saxe and Carl von Clausewitz developed and formalized the concepts of tactics and strategy, defining tactics as the methods used to win battles and strategy as the broader planning and decision-making for achieving overall objectives. This distinction became widely accepted and has since been a fundamental concept in military studies.

Rate this question:

6.

Of what military art was Vauban the master?

The cavalry pursuit.
Attacking and defending fortresses.
Naval formations.
Infantry movements.

Correct Answer

A. Attacking and defending fortresses.

Explanation

Vauban was a renowned military engineer and strategist during the late 17th century. He is widely recognized for his expertise in fortification design and siege tactics. His innovative ideas and designs greatly influenced the methods of attacking and defending fortresses during that time. Vauban's mastery in this military art made him a crucial figure in the development of fortifications and siege warfare strategies, making the answer "Attacking and defending fortresses" the correct choice.

Rate this question:

7.

Whose work epitomized eighteenth century warfare at its complex best?

Puységur
Machiavelli
Maurice de Saxe
Frederick the Great

Correct Answer

A. Maurice de Saxe

Explanation

Maurice de Saxe's work epitomized eighteenth-century warfare at its complex best. He was a renowned military strategist and field marshal who played a significant role in shaping military tactics during this period. His innovative approaches to warfare, such as the use of combined arms tactics and the development of light infantry, greatly influenced military thinking and practice. Saxe's campaigns and victories, particularly during the War of the Austrian Succession, showcased his ability to adapt to different terrains and effectively utilize his forces, making him a prime example of eighteenth-century warfare at its most sophisticated.

Rate this question:

8.

Why do the military works of Frederick the Great merit mention?

Their tactical brilliance.
The author was one of the greatest commanders of all times.
The strategic innovations found in them.
They were written in three languages.

Correct Answer

A. The author was one of the greatest commanders of all times.

Explanation

The military works of Frederick the Great merit mention because the author, Frederick the Great himself, was one of the greatest commanders of all times. This suggests that his works are of high value and significance in the field of military strategy and tactics.

Rate this question:

9.

Which strategic objective did Frederick the Great prefer, annihilation or attrition?

Annihilation
Attrition
Neither
He did not say.

Correct Answer

A. He did not say.

Explanation

The question asks which strategic objective Frederick the Great preferred, annihilation or attrition. The answer "He did not say" indicates that Frederick the Great did not express a preference for either objective.

Rate this question:

10.

According to Frederick the Great, what is the one factor that can make men march into cannon fire?

Fear
Honor
Training
Discipline

Correct Answer

A. Honor

Explanation

According to Frederick the Great, honor is the one factor that can make men march into cannon fire. This suggests that the sense of honor and duty can motivate individuals to act bravely and selflessly, even in the face of extreme danger.

Rate this question:

A History Of Strategy Chapter 3

On what is The Prince a treatise?

Quiz Preview

What was the common opinion that Machiavelli disproved in theory and in practice?

Which military element did Machiavelli underestimate?

What distinguished Montecuccoli from previous military writers?

In what century were tactics clearly distinguished from strategy?

Of what military art was Vauban the master?

Whose work epitomized eighteenth century warfare at its complex best?

Why do the military works of Frederick the Great merit mention?

Which strategic objective did Frederick the Great prefer, annihilation or attrition?

According to Frederick the Great, what is the one factor that can make men march into cannon fire?