The Art of War from the Point of View of Georg Wilhelm Von Valentini

Chapter 12 The Art of War from the Point of View of Georg Wilhelm von Valentini

The works written by Georg Wilhelm von Valentini are virtually forgotten to- day. According to his biographer, Roswitha Poll, the misfortune of writing on subjects closely related to those of Clausewitz, like many other Prussian military theoreticians of the time, were overshadowed by the author of Vom Kriege.1 Valentini is primarily remembered for his lively correspondence with Georg Heinrich von Berenhorst,2 an excellent source of knowledge about the age of reforms for many German scholars,3 in addition to his service on the staffs of Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg and Friedrich Wilhelm Bülow von Dennewitz during the Wars of Liberation.4 Remaining aspects of his biography, in particu- lar his theoretical opinions and service after 1815, remain virtually unknown.5 Apart from the unpublished biography by Poll, no one has carried out a thor- ough analysis of Valentini’s theoretical views, and references to him are of a casual nature. An analysis of studies prior to 1945 lead one to conclude that his writings and achievements were depreciated. Although Troschke described him as an insightful writer, excellent soldier, friend of Yorck and Berenhorst, and patron of Brandt, his description of Valentini’s Lehre vom Kriege is brief, the assessment limited to the number of republications and reviews in mlz.6 In 1873, Beiheft zum Militär-Wochenblatt included Valentini among the classics of reflection on tactics, but his works were deemed to be ‘craftsmanlike’ with- out taking into account spiritual aspects.7 Max Jähns was positive about Valen- tini’s contribution to the development of the theory of the ‘small war’, stressing

1 Poll, Valentini, 1, 182. 2 G.H. von Berenhorst, Aus dem Nachlasse von Georg Heinrich von Berenhorst, ed. E. von Bülow, vol. 1–2 (Dessau, 1845–1847). 3 J.G. Droysen, Das Leben des Feldmarschalls Grafen York von Wartenburg, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1854); Meinecke, Das Leben, vol. 2, 171; Poll, Valentini, 1. 4 Cf. Troschke, Die Militär-Literatur, 107; Böckmann, ‘Das geistige Erbe’, 127. 5 Poll also devotes little space in her work to the post-1815 period; Poll, Valentini, 170–181. Despite a very earnest approach to the research, most probably for quite objective reasons, she did not have full access to his military correspondence in the Boyen collection, mainly concerning the fortification of Glogau, e.g. GStA pk, vi. ha, Boyen, No. 1, Valentini to Boyen, Glogau, 7th September 1816, 7. On the problem of access to archive sources: Poll, Valentini, 2–4. 6 Troschke, Die Militär-Literatur, 107. 7 [Meerheimb], ‘Ueber Militair-Bildung’, 34.

376 Chapter 12 the response to his views at the turn of the 19th century.8 The opinions of later authors were decidedly more critical. Rudolf von Caemmerer recognised Val- entini as a model example of the inspiration of Archduke Charles in Germany. He believed that Valentini’s published works contained a number of valid prin- ciples, indicating, especially in comparison with the claims of A.H.D. von Bül- ow and Jomini, that the author was open-minded. On the other hand, Valenti- ni’s acceptance of the concept of key points (Schlüsseltheorie) showed that he had fallen under the influence of an obsolete 18th-century.9 Böckmann considered Valentini’s publications to be the first serious attempt to consider the es- sence of war after 1815. Although these works were based on extensive military and historical knowledge, Böckmann felt Valentini did not fully appreciated changes that had occurred in the waging of war. His description of the modern art of war contained rules that had by then been abandoned.10 Cochenhausen considered Valentini to be a significant figure, albeit of secondary importance in the development of military thought in the first half of the 19th century compared to Jomini, Clausewitz, and Rühle.11 He included Valentini, along with Willisen, in a circle of supporters of Jomini and considered his works to constitute an important part of the theoretical achievements in the 1820s and 30s. Assessing his views, however, Cochenhausen repeated virtually verbatim the opinion of Caemmerer that Valentini was inspired by the ideas of Arch- duke Charles, and references in literature after the Second World War repeat these opinions.12 Cochenhausen was more favourable towards the theses of Valentini proposed by Poll.13 In present historiography, Valentini is presented as one of a number of leading representatives of Prussian ‘romantic’ military thought in the first half of the 19th century.14 Francophone authors stress the correlation of Valentini’s views with those of Archduke Charles and Jomini,15 consistent with opinions expressed in Jomini’s Précis.16 More frequent are references to Valentini’s work on the ‘small war’, with some authors even

8 Jähns, Geschichte, vol. 21 (Munich and Leipzig, 1891), 2724–2725. 9 Caemmerer, Die Entwickelung, 56–57. 10 Böckmann, ‘Das geistige Erbe’, 125–126. 11 Cochenhausen, ‘Klassiker’, 243. 12 Carrias, La pensée, 179; Marwedel, Carl von Clausewitz, 190. 13 Poll, Valentini, 1, footnote 5, 182, footnote 900. 14 Gat, The Development, 46–49; Langendorf, ‘Ernst von Pfuel’, 285, 297; Langendorf, ‘Karl Wilhelm von Willisen: le stratégiste qui voulut être stratège’, Langendorf, La pensée, 472; Langendorf, Krieg führen, 323, 364. 15 Coutau-Bégarie, Traité, 199, 212; Langendorf, Krieg führen, 364. 16 Jomini, Précis, 19–20.