LAW, in the widest sense strictly applying to perception as well as
action, has plainly something subjective and arbitrary in its literal
meaning, and expresses just that on which we and those things external
to us are dependent. As a subject of cognition, LAW is the relation of
things and their effects to one another; as a subject of the will, it is
a motive of action, and is then equivalent to COMMAND or PROHIBITION.

PRINCIPLE is likewise such a law for action, except that it has not
the formal definite meaning, but is only the spirit and sense of law
in order to leave the judgment more freedom of application when the
diversity of the real world cannot be laid hold of under the definite
form of a law. As the judgment must of itself suggest the cases in which
the principle is not applicable, the latter therefore becomes in that
way a real aid or guiding star for the person acting.

Principle is OBJECTIVE when it is the result of objective truth, and
consequently of equal value for all men; it is SUBJECTIVE, and then
generally called MAXIM if there are subjective relations in it, and if
it therefore has a certain value only for the person himself who makes
it.

RULE is frequently taken in the sense of LAW, and then means the same
as Principle, for we say "no rule without exceptions," but we do not
say "no law without exceptions," a sign that with RULE we retain to
ourselves more freedom of application.

In another meaning RULE is the means used of discerning a recondite
truth in a particular sign lying close at hand, in order to attach to
this particular sign the law of action directed upon the whole truth. Of
this kind are all the rules of games of play, all abridged processes in
mathematics, &c.

DIRECTIONS and INSTRUCTIONS are determinations of action which have
an influence upon a number of minor circumstances too numerous and
unimportant for general laws.

Lastly, METHOD, MODE OF ACTING, is an always recurring proceeding
selected out of several possible ones; and METHODICISM (METHODISMUS) is
that which is determined by methods instead of by general principles or
particular prescriptions. By this the cases which are placed under such
methods must necessarily be supposed alike in their essential parts.
As they cannot all be this, then the point is that at least as many as
possible should be; in other words, that Method should be calculated
on the most probable cases. Methodicism is therefore not founded on
determined particular premises, but on the average probability of cases
one with another; and its ultimate tendency is to set up an average
truth, the constant and uniform, application of which soon acquires
something of the nature of a mechanical appliance, which in the end does
that which is right almost unwittingly.

The conception of law in relation to perception is not necessary for the
conduct of War, because the complex phenomena of War are not so regular,
and the regular are not so complex, that we should gain anything more by
this conception than by the simple truth. And where a simple conception
and language is sufficient, to resort to the complex becomes affected
and pedantic. The conception of law in relation to action cannot be used
in the theory of the conduct of War, because owing to the variableness
and diversity of the phenomena there is in it no determination of such a
general nature as to deserve the name of law.

But principles, rules, prescriptions, and methods are conceptions
indispensable to a theory of the conduct of War, in so far as that
theory leads to positive doctrines, because in doctrines the truth can
only crystallise itself in such forms.

As tactics is the branch of the conduct of War in which theory can
attain the nearest to positive doctrine, therefore these conceptions
will appear in it most frequently.

Not to use cavalry against unbroken infantry except in some case of
special emergency, only to use firearms within effective range in
the combat, to spare the forces as much as possible for the final
struggle--these are tactical principles. None of them can be applied
absolutely in every case, but they must always be present to the mind of
the Chief, in order that the benefit of the truth contained in them may
not be lost in cases where that truth can be of advantage.

If from the unusual cooking by an enemy's camp his movement is inferred,
if the intentional exposure of troops in a combat indicates a false
attack, then this way of discerning the truth is called rule, because
from a single visible circumstance that conclusion is drawn which
corresponds with the same.

If it is a rule to attack the enemy with renewed vigour, as soon as he
begins to limber up his artillery in the combat, then on this particular
fact depends a course of action which is aimed at the general situation
of the enemy as inferred from the above fact, namely, that he is about
to give up the fight, that he is commencing to draw off his troops, and
is neither capable of making a serious stand while thus drawing off nor
of making his retreat gradually in good order.

REGULATIONS and METHODS bring preparatory theories into the conduct of
War, in so far as disciplined troops are inoculated with them as active
principles. The whole body of instructions for formations, drill, and
field service are regulations and methods: in the drill instructions
the first predominate, in the field service instructions the latter.
To these things the real conduct of War attaches itself; it takes them
over, therefore, as given modes of proceeding, and as such they must
appear in the theory of the conduct of War.

But for those activities retaining freedom in the employment of these
forces there cannot be regulations, that is, definite instructions,
because they would do away with freedom of action. Methods, on the other
hand, as a general way of executing duties as they arise, calculated, as
we have said, on an average of probability, or as a dominating influence
of principles and rules carried through to application, may certainly
appear in the theory of the conduct of War, provided only they are
not represented as something different from what they are, not as the
absolute and necessary modes of action (systems), but as the best of
general forms which may be used as shorter ways in place of a particular
disposition for the occasion, at discretion.

But the frequent application of methods will be seen to be most
essential and unavoidable in the conduct of War, if we reflect how much
action proceeds on mere conjecture, or in complete uncertainty,
because one side is prevented from learning all the circumstances which
influence the dispositions of the other, or because, even if these
circumstances which influence the decisions of the one were really
known, there is not, owing to their extent and the dispositions they
would entail, sufficient time for the other to carry out all necessary
counteracting measures--that therefore measures in War must always
be calculated on a certain number of possibilities; if we reflect how
numberless are the trifling things belonging to any single event, and
which therefore should be taken into account along with it, and that
therefore there is no other means to suppose the one counteracted by
the other, and to base our arrangements only upon what is of a general
nature and probable; if we reflect lastly that, owing to the increasing
number of officers as we descend the scale of rank, less must be left
to the true discernment and ripe judgment of individuals the lower the
sphere of action, and that when we reach those ranks where we can look
for no other notions but those which the regulations of the service and
experience afford, we must help them with the methodic forms bordering
on those regulations. This will serve both as a support to their
judgment and a barrier against those extravagant and erroneous views
which are so especially to be dreaded in a sphere where experience is so
costly.

Besides this absolute need of method in action, we must also acknowledge
that it has a positive advantage, which is that, through the constant
repetition of a formal exercise, a readiness, precision, and firmness
is attained in the movement of troops which diminishes the natural
friction, and makes the machine move easier.

Method will therefore be the more generally used, become the more
indispensable, the farther down the scale of rank the position of the
active agent; and on the other hand, its use will diminish upwards,
until in the highest position it quite disappears. For this reason it is
more in its place in tactics than in strategy.

War in its highest aspects consists not of an infinite number of little
events, the diversities in which compensate each other, and which
therefore by a better or worse method are better or worse governed, but
of separate great decisive events which must be dealt with separately.
It is not like a field of stalks, which, without any regard to the
particular form of each stalk, will be mowed better or worse, according
as the mowing instrument is good or bad, but rather as a group of large
trees, to which the axe must be laid with judgment, according to the
particular form and inclination of each separate trunk.

How high up in military activity the admissibility of method in action
reaches naturally determines itself, not according to actual rank, but
according to things; and it affects the highest positions in a less
degree, only because these positions have the most comprehensive
subjects of activity. A constant order of battle, a constant formation
of advance guards and outposts, are methods by which a General ties
not only his subordinates' hands, but also his own in certain cases.
Certainly they may have been devised by himself, and may be applied
by him according to circumstances, but they may also be a subject of
theory, in so far as they are based on the general properties of troops
and weapons. On the other hand, any method by which definite plans
for wars or campaigns are to be given out all ready made as if from a
machine are absolutely worthless.

As long as there exists no theory which can be sustained, that is, no
enlightened treatise on the conduct of War, method in action cannot but
encroach beyond its proper limits in high places, for men employed
in these spheres of activity have not always had the opportunity of
educating themselves, through study and through contact with the higher
interests. In the impracticable and inconsistent disquisitions of
theorists and critics they cannot find their way, their sound common
sense rejects them, and as they bring with them no knowledge but that
derived from experience, therefore in those cases which admit of, and
require, a free individual treatment they readily make use of the means
which experience gives them--that is, an imitation of the particular
methods practised by great Generals, by which a method of action then
arises of itself. If we see Frederick the Great's Generals always making
their appearance in the so-called oblique order of battle, the Generals
of the French Revolution always using turning movements with a long,
extended line of battle, and Buonaparte's lieutenants rushing to the
attack with the bloody energy of concentrated masses, then we recognise
in the recurrence of the mode of proceeding evidently an adopted
method, and see therefore that method of action can reach up to regions
bordering on the highest. Should an improved theory facilitate the study
of the conduct of War, form the mind and judgment of men who are rising
to the highest commands, then also method in action will no longer reach
so far, and so much of it as is to be considered indispensable will then
at least be formed from theory itself, and not take place out of mere
imitation. However pre-eminently a great Commander does things, there
is always something subjective in the way he does them; and if he has
a certain manner, a large share of his individuality is contained in it
which does not always accord with the individuality of the person who
copies his manner.

At the same time, it would neither be possible nor right to banish
subjective methodicism or manner completely from the conduct of War: it
is rather to be regarded as a manifestation of that influence which the
general character of a War has upon its separate events, and to which
satisfaction can only be done in that way if theory is not able to
foresee this general character and include it in its considerations.
What is more natural than that the War of the French Revolution had its
own way of doing things? and what theory could ever have included that
peculiar method? The evil is only that such a manner originating in
a special case easily outlives itself, because it continues whilst
circumstances imperceptibly change. This is what theory should prevent
by lucid and rational criticism. When in the year 1806 the Prussian
Generals, Prince Louis at Saalfeld, Tauentzien on the Dornberg near
Jena, Grawert before and Ruechel behind Kappellendorf, all threw
themselves into the open jaws of destruction in the oblique order of
Frederick the Great, and managed to ruin Hohenlohe's Army in a way that
no Army was ever ruined, even on the field of battle, all this was done
through a manner which had outlived its day, together with the most
downright stupidity to which methodicism ever led.