HIS 620 Analysis Paper Guidelines and Rubric

Compare and Contrast Julian Corbett and Alfred Thayer Mahan's military theories.

Student Name

Course Name/Number

Submission Date

HIS 620 Analysis Paper Guidelines and Rubric

Introduction

Today, many theories can be applied to understanding different aspects of life aspects such as demonstrating what people believe, arguing for a particular decision made by people, or simply showing a cause of action. While many theories explain decisions made by people and states, some theorists offer competing theses and positions that solicit long-term impacts on people's perceptions regarding a matter dear to them. Corbett and Mahan are some of the most memorable theorists discussing warfare and the different views surrounding it. Julian Corbett’s theory of Naval warfare could be viewed as a limited war approach encouraging minimal disruptions. In contrast, Alfred Thayer Mahan’s theories of Naval warfare are inclined towards destroying enemy fleets during a naval battle to take full control of the sea.

Similarities between the military theories of Julian Corbett and Alfred Thayer Mahan

Corbett and Mahan strongly believed that having sea power was a critical component of national power is critical in the progress of any country’s naval abilities. However, nations need to have a strong navy to safeguard a nation's interests and ensure their security. Both authors' idea is that countries with access to the sea have a controlling interest in the development of their region and that of its sea power. This aligned with the view that both Corbett and Mahan opined that it is important for the navy to have a critical strategy. Both theorists emphasized the need for the naval force to have a strategy. Secondly, both theorists indicate that the navy should have a policy based on clearly understanding its strategic objectives and the means necessary to achieve them. In so doing, uniformity and unity of direction become key to accomplishing objectives set at different levels.[1] This implies that both theorists strongly believed in systems that assure progress and promote operation synchronization between different ranks of navel power.

Furthermore, Corbett and Mahan were both highly inclined towards controlling the sea’s communication infrastructure to keep a controlling power from different ends of the sea. The theorists indicate that countries with strong naval power should have unlimited access to sea resources for the effective distribution of troops and supplies and, at the same time, be able to share information with other allies. In addition, using technology becomes critical in attaining objectives with a strong inclination to telecommunication and warfare technology. Corbett and Mahan advocate for naval innovations that place a nation’s naval power ahead of future aggression that may attack.[2] The theorists also concur on the need to apply professionalism in dealing with different situations involving naval forces. This includes effective training, codes of conduct, and discipline that names troops more successful.

Differences between the military theories of Julian Corbett and Alfred Thayer Mahan

Despite the broad similarities between Corbett and Mahan, some unique features made each naval theory...