No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his sense ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by the war and how he intends to conduct it.

The side that feels the lesser urge for peace will naturally get the better bargain.

There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war.

In short, absolute, so-called mathematical, factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start, there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad, that weaves its way throughout the length and breadth of the tapestry. In the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards.

Intelligence alone is not courage, we often see that the most intelligent people are irresolute. Since in the rush of events a man is governed by feelings rather than by thought, the intellect needs to arouse the quality of courage, which then supports and sustains it in action.

[...] to introduce into the philosophy of war itself a principle of moderation would be an absurdity

Where absolute superiority is not attainable, you must produce a relative one at the decisive point by making skillful use ofwhat you have.