Research Paper on:
Theoretical Differences Between Clausewitz and Jomini

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
that seems to see the pair as either very similar or very different. The authors works are explored. Differences between the two are highlighted. Bibliography lists 2 sources.  SA247JaC.rtf The military theorists Jomini and Clausewitz spouted their ideas in the Napoleonic era and while the two have been compared and contrasted, there is little  agreement on whether or not these theorists are one in the same, or completely different. It is a rather curious predicament, but is nevertheless true. If each of the theorists  work were the same, it would be noticeable. Similarly, if their work was completely opposed to the other, that too would be obvious. Essentially, it is not clear cut. However,  while reading the works of each, one can see remarkable differences in terms of ideological positioning. It does appear that the theories of Jomini and Clausewitz are very different when  one digs beneath the surface. In Clausewitzs (1893) On War, he claims: "War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale" (PG). Here, it seems that Clausewitz takes  war rather lightly or matter of factly. It is not the complex entity that Jomini sees. The work goes on. Another observation by Clausewitz adds to the thesis that  indeed, this theorist saw things in black and white and could not comprehend the complex nature of warfare. He explains: "Two motives lead men to War: instinctive hostility and hostile  intention" (Clausewitz, 1893, p. PG). Clausewitz saw war simply and relayed his ideas rather eloquently. Yet, it was Jomini who created intricate strategies and was seen as a genius. Of  course, that point is arguable, but Jomini does get into the intricacies of the war and just what is occurring and what one has to do to win. In comparing