The contentious nature of war
an analysis of military theorists
The purpose of this essay is to investigate and assess, with Clausewitz?s theory as thebackground, how different military theorists interpret and relate to the nature of war.This essay illustrates the state of research into Clausewitz?s philosophical influences.Clausewitz?s theory of the nature of war is subjected to a qualitative text analysis that is followedby a critique of other military theorists interpretations of his theory. Subsequently a descriptive,comparative qualitative text analysis is performed where the factors identified by Clausewitz asbeing part of the nature of war (?rational thought?, ?passion? and ?chance?) are used as a meansto interpret and assess how other military theorists relate to Clausewitz theory. This essay ismainly founded on analysis of the works of Jomini, Delbrück, Fuller, Liddell Hart, Handel,Roxborough, van Creveld and Keegan. The analysis concludes with a categorization andassessment of the other theorists? critiques of Clausewitz?s theory. The result shows that theircritiques are founded on parts of Clausewitz?s theory, which have been taken out of context orinterpreted differently than they are in this essay.My analysis of how other military theorists relate to the factors that constitute the nature of waraccording to Clausewitz, shows that all of them interpret his three factors as essential parts of thenature of war. None of them contributes anything new to Clausewitz?s theory of the nature ofwar. Nor do they suggest any alternative explanation of the nature of war that does not fit withinthe framework of Clausewitz?s theory. All in all, the results of this essay consolidateClausewitz?s theory of the nature of war.