How did Clausewitz analyze courage in war?

Courage can be defined as a heart that does not fear danger, or as the mental function of suppressing fear within oneself so that it does not manifest outwardly. It is natural that courage has been a subject of analysis in the history of military studies, given the nature of military forces that carry out missions on dangerous battlefields. In modern times, this field has developed into military psychology, which discusses aptitude testing for soldiers and leadership.

In this article, I would like to introduce how courage was analyzed in the research of Carl von Clausewitz, who laid the foundations of military studies. We will explain the significance of courage in war and then consider the problems associated with it.

Courage is an essential quality for military personnel

Clausewitz stated that one of the greatest difficulties in constructing a theory of war is that the mental elements of the people involved in war cannot be observed directly. While it is possible to objectively clarify through observation when, where, and what kind of units are operating, the mental workings of the people who move those units cannot be observed directly.

Furthermore, Clausewitz believed that among the mental workings of humans facing a state of war, the most important is none other than courage. The courage mentioned here is not just the courage to be able to risk danger on the battlefield. Clausewitz states that making decisions under uncertain conditions and taking responsibility for failure is also courage.

"By the way, war is the realm of danger. Therefore, above all else, the primary characteristic of a military man is courage. There are two types of this courage. The first is the courage of the combatant to personally ignore danger. The second is the courage to take responsibility for one's own actions." (Vol. 1, p. 90)

Also, Clausewitz stated that courage is essentially not a function of the intellect, but depends largely on the function of the emotions, and he also wrote, "The intellect must first evoke the emotion of courage and be supported by it. For in times of crisis, it is emotion rather than deliberation that strongly governs human beings" (ibid., p. 94). Clausewitz's basic idea was that a military man must be able to regulate his own emotions through his intellect and take decisive action.

A sense of balance is also necessary to possess courage

As described, Clausewitz emphasized the importance of courage, but he was also well aware that courage itself carries risks. As can be seen from his analysis that courage depends strongly on the function of emotions rather than the intellect, it is entirely possible for courage to lead to rash actions.

A person who cannot calmly calculate the pros and cons of a situation may end up in a disadvantageous position by exercising courage. Clausewitz organizes this phenomenon as follows.

"Indeed, courage can certainly coincide with shrewd calculation. However, the two are of different kinds and belong to different aspects of the mind." (Vol. 1, p. 54)

Since courage and calmness are different mental functions, Clausewitz believed it was important to be able to control the intensity of emotions in a balanced manner. To exercise courage in war, the power of strong emotions is necessary, but it is desirable for a person to possess a temperament that does not allow the function of the intellect to be hindered by it (Vol. 1, p. 103).

"Strength of character" combining intellect and emotion

Clausewitz proposes that it might be possible to categorize a person's qualities into four types based on how the two conflicting elements of intellect and emotion clash within a single personality. This is an analysis that leads to the theory of temperament often seen in discussions of personality psychology from a generation ago. Although it lacks strict precision, it is an interesting discussion when considering job aptitude.

The first temperament applies to people who are not active and lack the power to act. Because their emotions rarely rise, they do not lose their mental balance, but they lack the power to take proactive action. Clausewitz states that the nature of not taking proactive action even when the environment changes can be considered a kind of ability, but it goes without saying that such people are basically lethargic and unsuitable as military commanders (Vol. 1, pp. 104-5).

The second temperament applies to people who are active to some extent, but because their emotions do not exceed a certain intensity, calmness is always dominant. Clausewitz analyzes that they can start acting immediately when stimulated by small events, but when faced with major difficulties, they tend to be immediately crushed and only lament their painful feelings. While they are suited for solving small problems, they are not suitable personnel for facing major difficulties like war (pp. 105-6).

The third temperament applies to people who are active and explode with great emotion at the slightest stimulation. Even if they face tremendous difficulties, they never try to stop acting, so they show excellent qualities in terms of the power to act. Clausewitz states that people with such qualities are very useful for junior officers in the military. However, he also states that the greater the movement of emotions, the shorter their duration, and he analyzes that their power to act is significantly lost over time. Therefore, they are considered unsuitable as commanders of large units over a long period (Vol. 1, pp. 105-6). However, it is also stated that if they can suppress their emotions through constant effort, they will become excellent people (Vol. 1, p. 106).

The fourth temperament applies to people who, at first glance, do not seem active, but once the function of emotion begins, they can maintain it for a long time. I think this is a slightly difficult type to understand, but Clausewitz expresses it using the metaphor of a flame that burns slowly rather than one that burns vigorously. Because these types of people do not show their emotions over trivial matters, they may appear to lack the power to act and seem lethargic at first glance, but once they start moving, they never stop acting no matter what difficulties they face, and they maintain their power to act over a long period, working on tasks with perseverance. Clausewitz analyzes that because they can balance the strength of emotions and the height of intellect in the long term, they are suitable as commanders of large units (pp. 106-7).

Summary

What can be understood from Clausewitz's analysis of courage is, I believe, the aptitude of personnel required by the military to carry out war. In war, military personnel must be brave. This is almost self-evident, but by analyzing it as a manifestation of the power to act driven by the function of emotions, Clausewitz pointed out that it may not be compatible with the function of the intellect.

Taking this analysis further, Clausewitz discusses the issue of courage by conducting a typological analysis of character and personality, arguing what kind of personnel should be assigned to what kind of military service. While the argument still lacks rigor when viewed from the perspective of modern military psychology, I think it is interesting for understanding how multifaceted and comprehensive Clausewitz's understanding of war was.

Header image: U.S. Department of Defense

Related articles