Do the classical theorists still apply to modern warfare in the Essay

Do the uncorrupted theorists still apply to upstart warfare in the twentieth century What about in the twenty-first century - Essay ExampleHowever, governmental bodies and rulers, along with the participants of battles and conflicts have their distinct and particular classic theorists with the consultative expertise, who recommends and propose impeccable opinions to these bodies. These theorist offers with their opinions and recommendations principally for the role of preparation as they have encountered the state realities of the battlefield in a widespread and comprehensive way. In addition, they are masters with the boundless and great selective information and statistics on the past and chronicled researches2. The studies and data demonstrates the fact that Hellenic theorist still apply to the modern-day conflicts and wars in the twentieth century as well as in the twenty-first century specifically concerning the technological advancements and boom in the industrial secto r that the world is experiencing. Although the industrial revolution did not sour change largely for the classical theorists, yet they continued to keep themselves modernized and elucidated the existing and recent truths and information on a continuous basis in order to maintain their worth and significance3. Several of the theories cogitate to warfare in the old times have undergone some changes and are dissimilar and unlike to the modern warfare as the social, political, cultural, economic and technological factors alters with the passage of time and thus, have a great visual sense of influence on the articulation of the warfare4. Many of the classical theories have come under collection, assembling, and consolidation by the theorists that were imperative and essential intuitions, perceptions and visions that emphasized their extended apprehensions of the warfare, rather than their advice to the explicit activities in the war. According to some of the classical theorists, ethic al and principal manipulation, climatic conditions, territory, or region of a country, authority, control and domination, and regulation and obedience were fewer major and elementary aspects that were critical and crucial to the planning of the war5. Whereas, when looking at the other end of the spectrum, in contrast to the extensive knowledge about the past records of the army and their headship and management, the above mentioned aspects of consideration at the planning of the war by few theorist was irrelevant, out of date or even pedestrian6. As the classical theorist had different perspectives, their ideas and thoughts differ from each other and this can come under witness by the diverse and deviating past situations and surroundings. Some of the theorists focused and emphasized that, victory in the drive and conquering and defeating the rivals through with(predicate) paramount focus was the leading and vital solution. While others highlighted and accentuated the fact that d eceit and dishonesty is the key to conquest and winning in the battle, and ruling over, and controlling the enemys insight and opinions will make them fight to the directed side7. Despite of the fact that the classical theorists were poles apart, nevertheless, they had abundant and plentiful chief and significant resemblances and relationship in their theories. The