Yes this relates to golf course architecture....How do you think the advances in military technology from the Civil War in America to WWII affected military strategy.  Did fundamentals remain the same...

John,

Very interesting question, and as Wayne and a few others can attest, I've often tried to connect golf architecture to military strategy.

I spent two summers in HS working as a tour guide intern for the NPS at Gettysburg.

To answer your question: the rudiments of military strategy have remained largely unchanged since the Napoleanic era, which is often considered to the be "dawn" of modern strategy. The objective is to still hold a battle line and to attempt to put the opponent in a disadvantage by applying a larger amount of force to the weak spot.

The weak spot is typically the flank (end of the lines) or some salient point (a "wedge" shape in the line). Use of terrain for defense and offense is still fundamentally the same as well.

However, the changes have come in speed and distance with technology. During the Civil War era, close fighting was necessary. It is a myth to think that Civil War era commanders were not adapting new tactics to the new weapons of the era, they knew full well the weapons capability. The problem was with communication - which during the time required all parties to be within ear shot. While the rifle allow for more accurate shooting at a longer distance, there was no way to effectively and effeciently communicate orders to the men without lining them up in the old style.

It may also be interesting to compare the implementation of tactics by the British and Germans during World War I and compare it to that of the lessons learned in the American Civil War. The Civil War saw the first large scale use of trenches (Sieges of Vicksburg, and Petersburg/Richmond being the most prolific example as well as Battles like Chattanooga, Spotsylvania Court House and Cold Harbor) and the lessons learned by American commanders in the field in the 1860s would be relearned by their British and German counterparts in the 1910s. Unfortunately for the British and Germans, the machine gun and even better weaponry than that of the Civil War had been invented.

So yes, the fundamentals have remained the same. It is the scale and speed at which they are implemented that has changed.

John,

I'm quite sure that Kyle can answer your question from a much more informed standpoint than I can as he's made a study of it.

I would say that if you haven't been to Gettysburg before it's something to see and experience.   Yes, there are parallels in strategy that would engage your golf architectural imagination, but much more overwhelming and relevant is the fact that it grabs you and shakes your sense of humanity and perspective.  

It simply leaves you in awe and makes you thankful for the lives and luxuries we have today.  It also makes one a bit sad that somehow over time we seem to have demonized our enemies, as it was very clear that despite their differences, the men who fought each other to the death on this field of battle held each other in high esteem, and there was a civility and nobilty even in the face of savagery, ultimate vulnerability, and the shadow of an early death.

 I think the analogy is that we are always fighting the last war, whether on the golf course or the battlefield. Golf courses were originally designed to counter a ground attack, and where the aerial game came into being that left golf courses at a disadvantage.
 The defense of speed in war is tantamount to increasing yardage in golf. The USGA and R&A are the equivalent to an army in defensive position and they are trying to counter the armament race, golf's manufacturers.
 Whichever side has the advantage will win. Currently that is the manufacturers. Disarmament talks are now underway.
 To end this, someone thinks that Baghdad can be defended by a trench.

 I heartedly echo Mike and Kyle on battlefields. I had avidly read and studied Gettysburg and thought I knew what went on. Not so after having been there in 2000. Being on Cemetery Ridge and at the beginning of Pickett's Charge, Little Round Top or the Devil's Den, you become a different person. On any battlefield. I have been to Omaha and Utah beaches, to the Murrah Building, the USS Arizona and it so vastly touching and you become insignificant in comparison to those who have been in battle.
 

Max Behr in some of this golf architectural articles actually touched on some of the fundamental similarities between warfare and golf in the sense he drew an analogy between the inherent result or goal fundamental of golf being in the currency of "strokes" and the inherent result or goal fundamental of warfare being in the currency of human lives and a military's ability to destroy its enemey's "assets".

But perhaps the most interesting military analogy to draw between golf and warfare is to utilize the game of chess---a game that actually has always had a very strong military connection, as well one that's been so often used in golf and golf architecture.

And John, one of the inherent oddites of the eons old game of chess is why the King is so ineffectual and so inherently defenseless and the Queen is so inhererently effectual and all powerful.  

Like the North Vietnamese, and now the Taliban and Iraqi militants, the objective is to gain victory thriough a thousand pin-pricks, sapping the will, morale, and resources of the more powerful opponent.

How this relates to golf course architecture I have no idea, except that it is singularly difficult to build a golf course in a war zone.

Maybe the folks in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken a leaf out of the 'Good Doctor's' book, who claimed his philosphy of making unnatural hazards look natural was an outgrowth of the Boers' ability to blend in with the landscape. Surely part of the insurgencies' success in these two spots is their ability to merge with the rest of the population until it's time for action, making the idea of pre-emptive strikes problematic.

BTW-I reckon Tom Doak could do a hell of a job with Kabul National. Surely his dealings with Keiser, Nicklaus and Pascucci would make the Taliban's meddling child's play...