The Apolytonian War Academy

[Gen.Dragolen]

Sir Ralph,

Can you add this old warhorse to the staff as well, please.

D.

[DAVOUT]

It seems that some citizen, including me, have not a readily access to maps ; even a member opened a thread to regroup maps, and only maps, and although a few interesting maps were submitted, they are now mixed with posts, etc.

So, I suggest that the War Academy takes steps to make available to all interested an updated set of maps of military interest.

[adaMada]

If it's not too late, I'd like to join...

-- adaMada

[jdd2007]

its never too late.

1000th post!

*Strength and Honor!*

[DAVOUT]

The greatest interest of the War Academy and the Machiavelli Institute is to discuss military problems for one, and diplomatic issues for the other, without any liabilities to general politic. In mixing the two approachs in some threads, I am not sure that we make the analysis easier and clearer.
The case of a thread headed the War Academy associated with a minister is still worse, of course, since it endangered the independance of the Academy.

Any opinion ?

[Shiber]

I'd like to join.

[Harovan]

Welcome, Shiber.

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The greatest interest of the War Academy and the Machiavelli Institute is to discuss military problems for one, and diplomatic issues for the other, without any liabilities to general politic. In mixing the two approachs in some threads, I am not sure that we make the analysis easier and clearer.
The case of a thread headed the War Academy associeted with a minister is still worth, of course, since it endangered the independance of the Academy.

Any opinion ?

I include such threads written for two institutes in the thread library and set the other institute as a remark. I know, that in some matters political/diplomatic and military problems can't be separated. Since Clausewitz we know that the latter is the continuation of the former by other means. As long as it goes not entirely off topic, I think we can tolerate this.

Sometimes I see War academy threads being started, just to show some own contribution, although there are existing threads with a very similar topic. This I don't appreciate much. First, it blows up the thread library and leads to confusions. Second, it makes it harder to respond to them, because often I could answer to 3 questions in 3 threads with one single post.

So for instance, if there is a thread "Strategies for the upcoming French campaign", it is pointless to open a thread "Should we use galleys against France", "The way to approach for our troops" or "When shall we declare war on France", because the latter 3 threads are subtopics for the former and thus are just spam. Note, that I'm not talking about existing threads; the mentioned threads are hypothetical and are meant just for demonstration purposes. You get the point.

About the Academy losing independence because it's led by a minister: That is just a temporary issue. I won't run for an office anymore and will always remain independent. Since I was elected in the government, I was quite inactive, did not open a single War academy thread and only occasionally responded to others. I don't think that I cause the academy to be under governmental influence.

[DAVOUT]

Sir Ralph,

Thank you for your comments.

I suggest the 3rd § be inserted in your top thread as guidelines for opening threads under the War Academy heading. It will help new comers, and possibly old ones !

I was not refering to you, since you have not personnally opened bi-headed War Academy threads, but to Road to France (Dpt. of Public Works. - Nothing personnal of course, it is a matter of principle).

As for the Clausewitz explanation, I am not sure it applies ; it answers the question why do we wage war, not how. IMHO, on subjects such as Contingencies Plans or Defensive case N/W, the Machiavelli Institute should provide the War Academy with the most probable diplomatic picture(s), and from that the War Academy would analyse the military consequences.

[Shiber]

Yes, I see your point here. No problem.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
I'd like to join.

hi ,

welcome Shiber

Sir Ralph , great job on the updates and other info

have a nice day

[Robber Baron]

I agree with Sir Ralph on the issue of cross-indexing threads as both War Academy and Machiavelli Institute. In some cases, the two spheres overlap, and there's not much harm, IMO, in inviting both communities/perspectives in on debate in those cases. Not much harm, and probably a great deal of good, in some cases. I certainly did not intend the Institute to encroach on the Academy's territory.

I suggested the creation of a seperate institution mainly because I was so impressed with the precision and thoughtfulness military planning took on as itcame under the umbrella of an "Academy" -- and because it seemed to me that there would be occasions and opportunities to discuss foreign affairs and/or diplomacy in contexts other than war with the same precision and thoughtfulness. War, as Clausewitz tells us, is an exercise of foreign policy, though only one kind of action, among many others.

And, for what it's worth, I have no problem with Sir Ralph serving in our government. I cannot see how it impaired the Academy's effectiveness, and hope it did not in any way inhibit Sir Ralph's participation in this forum.

[edit: added to clarify:] I also hope he feels free to hold office again in the future if he wants to. His expertise is invaluable to us.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Robber Baron

And, for what it's worth, I have no problem with Sir Ralph serving in our government. I cannot see how it impaired the Academy's effectiveness, and hope it did not in any way inhibit Sir Ralph's participation in this forum.

[edit: added to clarify:] I also hope he feels free to hold office again in the future if he wants to. His expertise is invaluable to us.

I have no problem either, all the more, as I said above :
I was not refering to you, since you have not personnally opened bi-headed War Academy threads, but to Road to France (Dpt. of Public Works. - Nothing personnal of course, it is a matter of principle).

[Kloreep]

I'd like to join.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Sir Ralph,

Thank you for your comments.

I suggest the 3rd § be inserted in your top thread as guidelines for opening threads under the War Academy heading. It will help new comers, and possibly old ones !

I was not refering to you, since you have not personnally opened bi-headed War Academy threads, but to Road to France (Dpt. of Public Works. - Nothing personnal of course, it is a matter of principle).


As for the Clausewitz explanation, I am not sure it applies ; it answers the question why do we wage war, not how. IMHO, on subjects such as Contingencies Plans or Defensive case N/W, the Machiavelli Institute should provide the War Academy with the most probable diplomatic picture(s), and from that the War Academy would analyse the military consequences.

I understand what you mean about some things not being combined, but think that others should be... I think that all military plans should also have a diplomatic analysis thread, and it seems easier to combine them into one thread at times.

For example, "Defensive Case N/W" -- I started that thread, and I opted for having one thread for both War plans and diplomatic options; I thought of making two threads on the subject, but didn't want to overrun people with threads on the topic (if nothing else, taking up valuable front-page space) . Perhaps the leaders of the War academy and the Machiavelli Institute could deside what the best way to handle situations like that?

-- adaMada

[GhengisFarb™]

My bad, I didn't sign up either. I want to join.

Just don't try to take my weapons......