0
Antoine-Henri Jomini is often considered to represent the scientific view of war and strategy due to his systematic approach to military theory and the principles he outlined in his works, particularly "The Art of War." He emphasized the importance of geometry, logistics, and the decisive battle, advocating for a structured understanding of warfare that could be analyzed and applied. His focus on clear principles and methodologies contrasts with the more chaotic and unpredictable nature of war, aligning with the Enlightenment ideals of rationality and order. Thus, Jomini's work is seen as an attempt to codify and make war a subject of scientific analysis.
What else can I help you with?
How can you use the map to argue that Alexander was no great document A?
How can you use the map to argue that Alexander was great?
Did Romulus and Remus argue about where to build their city?
Yes, Romulus and Remus did argue to build their city
In what way was the Emancipation Proclamation a part of Lincoln's military strategy?
Many people argue that in addition to being a human rights issue, the Emancipation Proclamation was also part of Lincoln's military strategy. Freeing the slaves would not only cause less chance of riot and rebellion on their part, but also provide more able bodies for his own army needs.
What did The Federalist argue about the constitution?
About Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson
What did Henry George argue in progress and poverty?
yes
Why did nativists use scientific ideas to argue?
That whites were superior to other races
What did nativist scientific ideas to argue?
They argued that white was the superior race. And that immigrants would destroy the country
Why did scientists argue against Wegener's continental drift hypothesis?
Because he didnt have enough "scientific" eviedence
What did nativists use scientific ideas to argue?
They argued that white was the superior race. And that immigrants would destroy the country
What can you learn from scientific argumentation?
With scientific argumentation comes knowing about something you believe is true. When you argue about things you not only try to prove what you believe but you can change your point of veiw by what some one else says.
What research has been done on aura therapy?
Skeptics argue that there are no scientific studies documenting the benefits of aura therapy or the existence of a human biofield.
What did natives use scientific ideas to argue?
Natives often used scientific ideas to argue for the legitimacy of their land claims and sovereignty, emphasizing their deep understanding of local ecosystems and sustainable practices. They highlighted their traditional ecological knowledge as a form of science, demonstrating how their ancestral practices maintained biodiversity and land health. Additionally, they utilized scientific evidence to contest harmful environmental impacts caused by colonial practices and advocate for conservation and environmental justice.
Dr. lanyon and Dr. jekll argue over?
Dr. Lanyon and Dr. Jekyll argue over Jekyll's scientific experiments and their ethical implications. Jekyll believes in pushing the boundaries of science and embracing new discoveries, while Lanyon is more cautious and concerned about the potential consequences of Jekyll's work. Their disagreement reflects a larger debate about the responsibility of scientists and the ethics of scientific innovation.
Has the theory about the bible being the most scientific book changed?
Please see the related link below.Many scientists today do not believe in the Bible, and would argue that it is not scientific. However, there are still some scientists who believe the Bible is true. The chart in the related link shows scientific facts from the Bible.
Why didnt he argue with me but argue with my friend?
Argue about what. Be more specific.
Has genetic entropy been debunked by scientific research?
Genetic entropy, the idea that genetic information is deteriorating over time, has not been debunked by scientific research. Some scientists argue that genetic entropy is a real phenomenon, while others believe it is not well-supported by evidence. The debate continues in the scientific community.
Which is the best hunter- the lion or the cheetah and why?
If you want to argue for the lions, you talk about their coordinated efforts, general strategies, etc. If you want to talk about the cheetah, you can talk about their physical might (speed, endurance, etc.). I think if you want to argue for the lions, you argue that they are the more intelligent and therefore the more /skilled/ hunter, while if you want to argue for the cheetah, you argue that they are /physically/ stronger than a lion. Though, I'm not sure if this is a very scientific approach... Maybe if you bolster your case with statistics and the size of the animals the lion/cheetah hunt in relation to its own size? :D
