Avis de soutenance - doctorat - Nathanaël PONTICELLI

Napoleonic campaigns and battles, characterized by the centrality of movement and the pursuit of decisive shock, appear to have little in common with the massive, industrialized combats of World War I, where the predominance of firepower, continuous fronts, and saturated battlefields – filled with mass armies – completely redefine manoeuvre. Between these two eras, combat methods, technologies, and even the nature of engagements undergo such radical transformations that war itself becomes almost unrecognizable from one century to the next. And yet, despite these upheavals, French military thought from Napoleon to Foch remains driven by an unwavering quest for permanent, timeless principles capable of serving as guides amid the chaos of war. Concepts such as the concentration of efforts, the economy of forces, and the primacy of the offensive over the defensive gradually structure French military doctrine. The interplays between moral and material factors also emerge as central concerns, as well as the issue of uncertainty inherent in war, which gives rise to the notions of surprise and security. Moreover, as early as the Revolutionary and Napoleonic campaigns, a nascent art of campaign planning and execution takes shape, emphasizing the need to coordinate battles in alignment with overarching war aims. This approach foreshadows what will later be formalized as the operational art, even though it remains largely empirical and under-theorized at the time. Napoleon himself, with his ability to conceive of campaigns as cohesive wholes – beyond mere battles – stands as one of its most brilliant practitioners. Finally, this period is marked by a persistent tension in the conduct of war. On one hand, commanders seek to direct manoeuvre with firm control, shaping events and imposing their will on the enemy. On the other, inspired by the Prussian method, they recognize the value of granting subordinates significant initiative to adapt to the war's unpredictable and ever-changing circumstances. This paradox between unity of action and decentralized initiative, never fully resolved, permeates the entire era.