Is this really a neologism? I think I've read it in sources over 60 years old.--Pharos 07:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Depends on how new "neo" is. But you're right; part of the UK's official WWII history is entitled "Grand Strategy", so not that new. Stan 12:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried my hand at a rewrite. Another half-dozen examples, from different eras, would be a good way to show the unity of concept. Stan 13:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The lengthy rant about Scipio, which would benefit from some formatting, strikes me as either a) not terribly relevant or b) relevant but written in such a way in that it's not made clear how. At the moment it seems like the author has recently done a paper on Scipio Africanus and felt the need to show it off. -AD, Heidelberg 2006

You're right, I have always wanted to remove that section as well, but I feared that it would leave the article naked. However it had to be removed. Miskin 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the irrelevant reference to Scipio - nothing at all to do with Grand Strategy - and have replaced it with a short paragraph on Britain's maritime policy which I think provides another good example. (Rumblingthunder 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

"The Athenian league lost the war under Alkibiades who changed with the Sicily campaign the indirect approach to direct which was a crucial and basic strategic mistake."

i deleted the above because it is an oversimplification of the athenian strategy and the sicilian campaign was to assist an athenian ally in sicily during a period in which there were no outright hostilities between Sparta and Athens. While Alcibiades was a primary author of the campaign, he played no part in its execution and did not serve athens in a leadership role again until 411, some years after the sicilian campaign. if you object please reword the statment to more accurately reflect the nature of the events before reposting

Does china really need to be on here? The point of any "strategy" is if you are at war - or will be at war; which country is china at war with? I can understand the cold war, which is still a war - albeit cold. China however is not in this type of situation. USA changes the size of it's army all the time, and so does any other country, so what dif with china? I think the reason why this might be on here is because of the mentality people have of seeing china as an evil country (like russia back in the cold war), anything china do is seen as hostile - even internal self governing functions (I bet if US increase the size of it's military, no one will rise an eyebrow, but the world will go to hell if china did). I would like to delete this, if there's no objections. Please provide counter-arguments if you do. 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you do have to actually be at war to have a strategy. That's the difference between "strategy" and "grand strategy", which this article describes. I think the PRC item is actually a particularly good example of grand strategy, because reduction of military forces is counterintuitive for a "rising power" from a narrow strategical framework. The size of one's army is part of grand strategy, for the PRC, the US, and everyone else.--Pharos 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this article clearly state at the beginning that it is a military strategy. From what I understand, when you say "Strategy", you are refering more closely to "development". For example, China's current development policy is to decrease the size of it's military while increase spending on other areas. So while the former (a grand military strategy) use economy to achieve a militaristic end (ie, to wage a bigger war later); a development policy might decrease military spending for the sole reason of boosting economy and the standard of living of the said country.
    • "Grand strategy" is simply the application of general policy (including economics, diplomacy, etc.) to military affairs. Saying they're employing some level of grand strategy does not mean they're planning World War III. Every country in the world engages in grand strategy, including countries without armed forces who have decided they can depend on allies for support, or that maintaining a military is just more trouble than it's worth. That said, looking over the history of the People's Liberation Army article, I think you might have a point about supposed grand ambitions to build up the military in future. Specifically, that article discusses the shrinking of the Chinese army as a step toward "modernization" along US lines, rather than as part of an explicit "shrink-so-you-can-grow" theory. Unless a source is found for the latter, I suggest we might change the description.--Pharos 08:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is thought, what you said is different than what's actually in the article. We can talk about what exactly IS a "Grand Strategy" all we want here, but at the end, it doesn't mean much. So unless you want to change the article itself to match what you said here, the original point still stand. A "grand strategy" (at least according to the article's definition in any case) does not accurately describe the current situation with China; hence, it should be removed.

There hasn't been any replies in a while, if no one else have any objections (backed up by arguments) then I will go ahead with the edit, I will be sure to log in for this.

I am going ahead with the edit. Yongke 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... seem like someone else was even more egger to edit this, well whatever flows the boat I guess.

I would argue that Grand Strategy while focused on war, does not require a war to be going on. It can refer to the preparation for the potentiality of war. China's focus on rapid deployment transportation systems in order to be able to reach Taiwan faster than anyone else is part of its grand strategy to prevent its more independent provinces to rebel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.141.253 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section about the Athenian use of a drawn out, naval blockade of the Spartan and allied Peloponnesian forces should be removed. This section is historically false, and a simple click to follow the link provided to the wiki page about the Peloponnesian War shows that.

Therefore, I have removed it. If anyone feels otherwise, please discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrc wolfbrother (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Geez, by this rate, there wouldn't be any examples left :( Yongke 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be? It's not something you can do everyday to turn an entire nation's resources, labor and people towards one centralized strategy. wrc_wolfbrother 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice, tight article, but it'd be great to have some references to classics of military literature for further reading and to back up what's discussed in the article. -- 72.248.107.194 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to replace primacy with the much more common term hegemony, as primacy is not a grand strategy but a means to help achieve the ends of policy. Hegemony, or dominion, on the other hand prescribe a goal as well as the means to achieve it. (see Robert J. Art, 2003, A grand Strategy for America)

Classified start. Article has good potential for a higher class but really needs work on coverage. There is too great an emphasis on modern US practice, insufficient discussion of historical or non-US examples. Mostly well referenced but some areas still need in line cites. Appropriate use of maps or diagrams to illustrate concepts should be considered.Monstrelet (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]