The Most Consistently Successful Commanders, When Faced

The Downfall Of Civilized States Tends To Come Not From The Direct Assaults Of Foes, But From Internal Decay Combined With The Consequences Of Exhaustion In War.

In A Campaign Against More Than One State Or Army, It Is More Fruitful To Concentrate First Against The Weaker Partner Than To Attempt The Overthrow Of The Stronger In The Belief That The Latter's Defeat Will Automatically Involve The Collapse Of The Others.

The Military Weapon Is But One Of The Means That Serve The Purposes Of War: One Out Of The Assortment Which Grand Strategy Can Employ.

...regrettable As It May Seem To The Idealist, The Experience Of History Provides Little Warrant For The Belief That Real Progress, And The Freedom That Makes Progress Possible, Lies In Unification. For Where Unification Has Been Able To Establish Unity Of Ideas It Has Usually Ended In Uniformity, Paralysing The Growth Of New Ideas. And Where The Unification Has Merely Brought About An Artificial Or Imposed Unity, Its Irksomeness Has Led Through Discord To Disruption.

The Profoundest Truth Of War Is That The Issue Of Battle Is Usually Decided In The Minds Of The Opposing Commanders, Not In The Bodies Of Their Men.