Face of Battle

[Montmorency]

Keegan states that the distinction between strategy and tactics is "elusive and artificial." Please explain.

[Arjos]

One could see strategy as the set of actions and planning to achieve a grand goal; and tacticts as the set of procedures to gain the upper hand in a confrontation...
While Keegan points out how the distinction between the two is something "feeble" and "constructed"...

Imo it's all down to a personal view...

[Montmorency]

That's not very satisfying.

Correction: Face of Battle. Oh dear.

[Arjos]

I don't know how to make it clearer :S

It's like this: tacticts are used to win a battle, while strategy to win the war; Keegan says that it's all the same...

This is very simplistic though...

[Montmorency]

Imo it's all down to a personal view...

That's what I was referring to.

Yes, I see that you yourself provided a reasonable distinction. So why doesn't Keegan see one?

[Arjos]

Ohhhhhh :P

That in your quote was how I see it :D (there's a distiction or not depending on one's opinion)

To me they are two different things: for example one can have in mind a set goal, but rely on opportunism or is powerless to mold reality to his favour, even if he can achieve victory on the battlefield...
First to my mind is Spartacus...

I read "A History of Warfare" by Keegan, didn't read "Face of Battle" yet (you gave me another one to add to the list ^^), so I can't say...
Doesn't he go further with his idea in the book?