14.12.2022 22.

24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

About  Research  Commentary & Analysis Events  Podcasts 

SEARCH …
Special Series 
CLAUSEWITZ IS FROM MARS,
FOLLOW US
JOMINI IS FROM VENUS: WHY
CONTEXT MATTERS IN 
MILITARY THEORY FACEBOOK
George Fust | 12.30.20
 YOUTUBE

 TWITTER

DISCLAIMER

The articles and

other content
which appear on
the Modern War
Institute website
are unofficial
expressions of
     opinion. The views
expressed are
those of the
Study your Clausewitz, you’re told. Study your Jomini, too. authors, and do
Study B.H. Liddell Hart, Sun Tzu, and John Boyd. History has not reflect the
provided us no shortage of military theorists for members official position of
of the profession of arms to draw insights from. Some are the United States
more influential than others, and all have value. But they Military Academy,
must be read in the context they were written. Today’s Department of the
military professional must be aware of influences on the Army, or
authors they are leveraging for insight. A more complete Department of
understanding of the source’s background and evolution of Defense.
their theory can help prevent misapplication. Observing the
source’s conclusion in the context of its origin allows for a The Modern War
Institute does not

https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 1/7
14.12.2022 22.24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

more refined evolution of the theory. History offers insight screen articles to
but never a complete solution. fit a particular
editorial agenda,
Each of us is a product of our experiences. Life events form nor endorse or
the basis of perspective and approach to understanding. advocate material
Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine-Henri Jomini provide an that is published.
especially instructive case in point. Both analyzed the same Rather, the
history yet arrived at different conclusions. Despite their Modern War
similarities as military officers at the end of the eighteenth Institute provides
and into the nineteenth centuries, their overarching theory a forum for
and conclusions about war differ. The differences between professionals to
Jomini and Clausewitz are derived from personal insights share opinions
because of unique life experiences. Those experiences and cultivate
determined the lens each would employ to develop his ideas. Comments
theory, which, coupled with the differing motivations will be moderated
behind their writing, explains why Jomini and Clausewitz before posting to
developed different ideas about war. The implications of ensure logical,
this finding for current military professionals are significant. professional, and
Those who rely on these and other military theorists in their courteous
professional development must seek to interpret the application to
influences on the authors to prevent misuse and to better article content.
understand their own biases. Experience drives perspective.
An analysis of the experience, philosophical framework, and
motivations of Jomini and Clausewitz provides insight into
MOST
the development of their timeless theories and provides a POPULAR
model for current professionals. POSTS

The experiences both Jomini and Clausewitz encountered Is the US

Military’s Favorite
from a young age is strikingly different. (Peter Paret’s edited Novel a Timeless
volume, Makers of Modern Strategy, does an excellent job Classic or
highlighting the lives of these men and is the primary Overrated Drivel?
Yes.
source throughout this article.) Clausewitz saw battle at age
twelve while serving in the Prussian army. Compare this to
Jomini, whose earliest formative experience was as a The Greatest Risk
in Mobile Nuclear
banker’s apprentice in France. Clausewitz rose through the Power? Failing to
military rank and file with various combat and staff duties. Take Advantage
This career path exposed him to strategic planning and of the Decisive
Edge it Offers the
political-military decisions at the highest level. In contrast, US Military
Jomini never held military command and subsequently
spent his life in search of recognition he felt he deserved. White Hulls in the
Both men anchored their military theories on the influences North: The Case
of their early experiences. Jomini’s work largely lacks for Tapping
Unused Federal
perspective on the larger aspects of war because his Resources in the
primary vantage point was that of a staff officer. He focused Arctic
on the practical application of troop employment and lines
of effort at the operational and tactical level. Clausewitz,
however, was interested in the holistic questions UPCOMING
https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 2/7
14.12.2022 22.24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

surrounding war. His time as the adjutant to a prince and EVENTS

experience on the losing side led him to question the
interaction of politics and war. He experienced firsthand the There are no
unpredictable friction involved in fighting war and would upcoming events.
later incorporate the imponderables of conflict into his
writing. War to Jomini was neat and orderly, heroic even. His
writing reflects both his desire for command and the ANNOUNCEM
systematic nature of his staff officer experience. While both ENTS
men draw heavily on their early life experiences, other
Announcing the
events and personalities contributed to the differences in Modern War Institute’…
their theoretical approaches and conclusions.
Call for Submissions:
Civil-Military Relations…
Both Jomini and Clausewitz were singularly influenced early
in their careers by lecturers of differing philosophical Call for Applications:
MWI’s 2022–23 Fellow…
movements. While not especially strict in adherence to a
particular philosophy, Clausewitz tended towards German Call for Submissions:
idealism because of his exposure to Johann Gottfried “The Army in 2040”…
Kiesewetter and G.W.F Hegel. The study of war through this
lens is obvious in Clausewitz’s writing style. Clausewitz
shows his work constantly. He demonstrates his belief that
observations can be measured, but that these observations
are influenced by the observer and so the conclusions
drawn from them can never be truly known. Additionally,
there is an element of chance in events being observed, and
thus some questions can never be fully answered. The use
of deductive logic can, however, help determine a greater
probability of correctness because it seeks to identify the
known from the unknowable. War according to Clausewitz
is complicated. Successful strategy requires constant
evaluation and intellectual humility. Clausewitz uses this
philosophy as his primary model for exploring war, in stark
contrast to Jomini, who leverages an enlightenment model
based on the philosophy to which his primary intellectual
influence, Gen. Henry Lloyd, adhered. For Jomini, an
observation can be tested with logic to arrive at a
conclusion. The world is rational and certain laws dictate
how things work. In short, problems have solutions. This is
a more direct and conclusive model than Clausewitz’s
because the unknown can become known through logic.
The early philosophical influences on the two men provided
the framework they would use to explain their personal war
observations and historical events, and ultimately to
develop their differing conclusions regarding war.

The combination of experience and philosophical

framework are significant but offer an incomplete
understanding of why Clausewitz and Jomini differed in

https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 3/7
14.12.2022 22.24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

their theories. A review of their motivations to write offers a

more complete explanation. Jomini and Clausewitz wrote
for nearly opposite reasons. Clausewitz wrote at the end of
his career as a form of reflection. He sought to understand
his experiences as a total phenomenon. His direct
involvement on the losing side of war compelled him to try
to help future generations understand the totality of war.
Political factors play a central position in Clausewitz’s theory
and understanding them is essential to make sound
judgments. He wrote as an intellectual exercise primarily to
increase the effectiveness of government actions in
directing military resources to attain political goals. Jomini,
by contrast, began writing at a young age while on active
duty. He wrote to establish a reputation for himself and for
financial gain. He wrote what his audience wanted: a how-
to-guide for war. This led to a formulaic style in his writing.
His relative youth and personal ambition are evident
throughout his early writings. Both are reflected in his style
and content. He captures the principles of war and yet fails
to define war itself. He desperately sought battlefield
command and subsequently provided an operational
handbook for commanders in an attempt to establish his
reputation at a young age. He lacked experience at the
strategic level and his philosophical framework did not lend
itself to qualitative analysis. In short, Jomini was motivated
by self-interest while Clausewitz wrote for deeper
understanding. Their motivations were instrumental in
developing their respective theories of war.

Clausewitz and Jomini offer a compelling case study to

remind military professionals to be aware of the influences
on the authors they are looking to for insight. The principles
they—and other military theorists—offer, therefore, do not
provide solutions, but rather individual inputs for
developing solutions. They should not be taken at face
value, wholesale and unquestioned. The two prominent
scholars examined here studied the same events and
arrived at different conclusions. This should serve as a
warning to military officers today to broaden their scope of
study, especially given the prominent role Clausewitz enjoys
as first among equals on reading lists and professional
military education syllabi. It also highlights how personal
background and influence shapes perspective. Knowing this
in advance can help identify blind spots and biases and
offers a reminder to conduct as much analysis as time
permits. Jomini and Clausewitz developed timeless theories
but were shaped by their experiences. Officers today would

https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 4/7
14.12.2022 22.24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

do well to understand the experiences that shape their

conclusions and those whom they draw inspiration from.

Maj. George Fust is a military intelligence officer currently

attending the Command and General Staff Officer College. He
previously taught in the Social Sciences Department at the US
Military Academy at West Point. He holds a master’s degree in
political science from Duke University and has published in a
variety of sources.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect
the official position of the United States Military Academy,
Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

    

4 COMMENTS

Horácio de Sousa Ramalho on 12.30.20 at 4:58 pm

This is an excellent article, and also valuable for those who
belong to the field of International Relations. Being an area
that was practically born due to the war, as a recurring
phenomenon, it is important for its members to know the
thoughts of those who dedicated themselves to the study of
war. In this way, better coordination between foreign policy
and defense policy is possible, between policy makers and
those responsible for military strategy.

REPLY
https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 5/7
14.12.2022 22.24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

Patricia merritt on 12.30.20 at 8:49 pm

The breaking ofa nation's will to resist is the finale object in
war..In international power politics, the willingness to accept
challenge is far, far more important than physical capacity to
wage war. Here we have failed. Currently, ally and enemy alike
regard the United States as having lost its will to resist
Communism in all other parts of the world with the exception
of the United States. Though we have affirmed and re-affirmed
our commitment….our actions do not follow our Words..
Ernest Cuneo ..

REPLY

Hans Huygens on 01.03.21 at 8:03 pm

Excellent article, with one exception, offering insight to the
possible (lack of) knowledge on gender leadership qualities of
the author: I put it that Jomini is the one ‘from Mars’ (showing
distinct male leadership qualities such as analytic goal oriented
approach – mainly at operational and tactical levels-,
confidence in deterministic logic, while having only limited
experience), while Von Clausewitz shows more feminine
leadership traits (holistic, strategic approach, room for doubt,
chance and friction) and is in this regards ‘from Venus’.

REPLY

Israel T on 11.09.21 at 10:46 pm

Thank you.
This is an excellent article and serves as one more useful
signpost along the road of Clausewitzian and Jominian studies.

REPLY

LEAVE A REPLY
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 6/7
14.12.2022 22.24 Clausewitz is from Mars, Jomini is from Venus: Why Context Matters in Military Theory - Modern War Institute

COMMENT

NAME * EMAIL * WEBSITE

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I
comment.

POST COMMENT

© 2022 Modern War Institute

https://mwi.usma.edu/clausewitz-is-from-mars-jomini-is-from-venus-why-context-matters-in-military-theory/ 7/7