#Alfred t mahan theory how to#
As Corbett himself wrote, it’s only useful to naval professionals if they understand how to adapt that theory, to modify it, to think about it, within their modern or contemporary context. This does not help us comprehend how they themselves meant their ideas to be applied. In learning only about theory, only about selective excerpts of what these strategists said about sea power and strategy but ignoring who they were and where their ideas came from, we are only presented with a theoretical foundation. For historians engaged in strategic studies this presents a problem. Yet few of them appear to spend much time teaching about who they were.
This more historically informed approach demonstrates that the most important part of a comparison between the two men and their writing is how, despite the differences in their background and methods, they largely agree on the key elements of naval strategy.Īlmost all the staff colleges and war colleges in the modern world, including those in the People’s Republic of China for more than a decade, teach about what Mahan and Corbett wrote. Looking at them and their writings through these historical lenses rather than via a focus on theory offers a different perspective. By examining the two men in width across their published work, in depth through their biographies, and in context by acknowledging the time and audiences which they wrote for, we can help explain the differences between the two men and understand the significance of the fact that in general they came to the same or similar conclusions. However, this is a historically and conceptually flawed way to approach them and their naval thinking. But the result of this is a general understanding that the two strategists disagreed and sets up the need to choose between them. This caricature is likely offered because highlighting differences appears an easier pedagogy than explaining similarities. In our contemporary lessons on naval strategy and maritime affairs, the ideas of Mahan and Corbett are often offered as separate “Schools of Thought,” encouraging students to identify as either “Mahanian” or “Corbettian” and to see the two men and their ideas in opposition to one another. Their writings and theories are often taught at war colleges and staff colleges, and they lie at the foundation of most naval strategic writing and teaching even one hundred years after their deaths.
Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan and Sir Julian Corbett are the two most well-known naval strategists and naval educators.
0 kommentar(er)
