Did Jomini ever take part in actual battles?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Did General Antoine Jomini ever fought in any battles like in the Siege of Varna (1828) or Jena (1806) or did he just ride around and provide military commentary to help the other folks? Basically, did he ever fought/command in any battles or just did military theory?

[torongill]

I was born in Varna and this is the first time I've even heard of that general.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

He was a Military Theorist (Swiss man he was ) who served in the Swiss army, then the French under Napoleon then in 1812 until 1832 served in the Russian Military and did theory stuff afterwards .

[Hanny]

Did General Antoine Jomini ever fought in any battles like in the Siege of Varna (1828) or Jena (1806) or did he just ride around and provide military commentary to help the other folks? Basically, did he ever fought/command in any battles or just did military theory?

Ulm, Eylau and Jena, Lutzen he was ADC to Ney.

[Dr. Oza]

hes comparable to Clausewitz

but i think he was involved but not distinguishably

im not sure tho

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

He served in a few battles, I think he became a colonel after being Ney's ADC. Whatever the nature of his service, it is obvious, though, from his book, that he really knows what he's talking about.

Anyhow, I think his book (well, his most famous one, Précis sur l'art de la guerre) is brilliant. After wading through Clausewitz's convoluted book, Jomini's is far more concise, to the point, and instructional. This is probably the biggest difference between the two -- whereas Clausewitz liked to complicate things, Jomini was always looking to make his books didactic and concise.

[Farnan]

Jomini was also wrong.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Jomini was also wrong.

Most thinkers from previous centuries may be considered "wrong" by today's standards; that doesn't make them any less interesting in their own context.

[Farnan]

Most thinkers from previous centuries may be considered "wrong" by today's standards; that doesn't make them any less interesting in their own context.

Jomini believed there was one way to win a war, Clausewitz his rival disagreed. Though Jomini had a greater impact on thought for a while as his statement that total destruction of the enemies army should be the only goal was believed in both world wars.

[Hanny]

Jomini believed there was one way to win a war, Clausewitz his rival disagreed. Though Jomini had a greater impact on thought for a while as his statement that total destruction of the enemies army should be the only goal was believed in both world wars.

Not quite, Jomini believed that correct deployement in any tactical situation must result in victory, C-Witz did not disagre pre se, but his writtings simply had morew aplicability over time than did jominis.


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/jomini/lsn08.htm
.Jomini’s ideas really were not a theory of war: they were a theory of deployment. Jomini has been accused from time to time of merely offering a cookbook of war, this by persons who do not reflect on how extraordinarily useful a cookbook may be. His basic ideas, many of them influenced by his reading of Henry Lloyd, include interior and exterior lines, the decisive point, concentration of strength against weakness, annihilation of the enemy force, the primary importance of the offensive, surprise, and the potentially decisive role of logistics. The essential object of all this was to win a favorable result through the concentration of strength against weakness. Jomini felt these were fundamental, almost mathematical principles of war and that they were good for all time. These ideas were absorbed by Dennis Hart Mahan into the curriculum of the then-fledgling United States Military Academy in 1830, where Civil War leaders on both sides learned them. They have become part of the training of the U.S. Army today in the form of the Principles of War, which may be thought of as merely Jomini writ short. Most modern services today teach these principles in some form.
You might also like this.
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/B...ni/JOMINIX.htm

and this http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/B...ni/JOMINIX.htm

[Trax]

After wading through Clausewitz's convoluted book, Jomini's is far more concise, to the point, and instructional.

Isn't that often considered to be his greatest weakness?
The work of Clausewitz applies to all ages while Jomini's work looses value
the farther you go from the context it was written in.

I'm just referencing some things I've read here and there I don't have
first hand experience with their writings.