Military science is the study of military processes and behavior, along with the study of warfare, the theory and application of organized coercive force. It is focused on theory and practice of producing military capability in a manner consistent with national defense policy. Military science serves to identify the strategic, economic, social, operational and tactical elements necessary to sustain relative advantage of military force. Military scientists include theorists, experimental scientists, applied scientists, engineers, test technicians, other military personnel. Military personnel obtain weapons and training to achieve specific strategic goals. Military science is used to establish enemy capability as part of technical intelligence. In military history, military science had been used during the period of Industrial Revolution as a general term to refer to all matters of military theory and technology application as a single academic discipline, including that of the deployment and employment of troops in peacetime or in battle.
In military education, military science is the name of the department in the education institution that administers officer candidate education. However, this education focuses on the officer leadership training and basic information about employment of military theories, concepts and systems, graduates are not military scientists on completion of studies, but rather junior military officers; until the Second World War, military science was written in English starting with capital letters, was thought of as an academic discipline alongside Physics and the Medical Science. In part this was due to the general mystique that accompanied education in a World where as late as the 1880s 75% of the European population was illiterate; the ability by the officers to make complex calculations required for the complex "evolutions" of the troop movements in linear warfare that dominated the Renaissance and history, the introduction of the gunpowder weapons into the equation of warfare only added to the veritable arcana of building fortifications as it seemed to the average individual.
Until the early 19th century, one observer, a British veteran of the Napoleonic Wars, Major John Mitchell thought that it seemed nothing much had changed from the application of force on a battlefield since the days of the Greeks. He suggested that this was so because as Clausewitz suggested, "unlike in any other science or art, in war the object reacts"; until this time, after the Franco-Prussian War, military science continued to be divided between the formal thinking of officers brought up in the "shadow" of Napoleonic Wars and younger officers like Ardant du Picq who tended to view fighting performance as rooted in the individual's and group psychology and suggested detailed analysis of this. This set in motion the eventual fascination of the military organisations with application of quantitative and qualitative research to their theories of combat. Military implements, the supply of an army, its organization and discipline, have constituted the elements of military science in all ages.
The breakthrough of sorts made by Clausewitz in suggesting eight principles on which such methods can be based, in Europe, for the first time presented an opportunity to remove the element of chance and error from command decision making process. At this time emphasis was made on the Topography, Military art, Military history, Organisation of the Army in the field and Science of Projectiles, Field fortifications and Permanent fortifications, Military legislation, Military administration and Manoeuvres; the military science on which the model of German combat operations was built for the First World War remained unaltered from the Napoleonic model, but took into the consideration the vast improvements in the firepower and the ability to conduct "great battles of annihilation" through rapid concentration of force, strategic mobility, the maintenance of the strategic offensive better known as the Cult of the offensive. The key to this, other modes of thinking about war remained analysis of military history and attempts to derive tangible lessons that could be replicated again with equal success on another battlefield as a sort of bloody laboratory of military science.
Few were bloodier than the fields of the Western Front between 1914 and 1918. Fascinatingly the man who understood Clausewitz better than most, Marshal Foch would participate in events that nearly destroyed the French Army, it is not however true to say that military theorists and commanders were suffering from some collective case of stupidity. Their analysis of military history convinced them that decisive and aggressive strategic offensive was the only doctrine of victory, feared that overemphasis of firepower, the resultant dependence on entrenchment would make this all but impossible, leading to the battlefield stagnant in advantages of the defensive position, destroying troop morale and willingness to fight; because only the offensive could bring victory, lack of it, not the firepower, was blamed for the defeat of the Imperial Russian Army in the Russo-Japanese War. Foch thought that "In strategy as well as in tactics one attacks". In many ways military science was born as a result of the experiences
Pierre-Amable de Bonne was a seigneur, lawyer and political figure in Lower Canada. He was born in Montreal in 1758, the son of Louis de Bonne de Missègle, Chevalier de Saint-Louis, studied at a college operated by the Sulpicians the Collège Saint-Raphaël and the Petit Séminaire de Québec, he served in the militia defending the town of Quebec during the siege by the Americans in 1775-6. He participated in the campaign at Lake Champlain, becoming lieutenant, was taken prisoner in 1777 at the Battle of Saratoga. De Bonne continued to serve in the militia after this time, becoming colonel in 1809, he studied law at Montreal and qualified as a lawyer and notary in 1780. De Bonne inherited the seigneury of Sault-Sainte-Marie from his father. In 1781, he married daughter of Michel Chartier de Lotbinière. In 1788, he was named a justice of the peace. De Bonne was a director of the Théâtre de Société, formed in Montreal in 1789, he was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada for York in 1792.
He was elected in Quebec County in 1804, 1808 and 1809. In the assembly, de Bonne was among those supporting the use of French as well as English by the assembly. In 1794, he was named to the Executive Council. De Bonne helped found the newspaper Le Courier de Québec, which opposed the Parti canadien. In 1794, he was appointed judge in the Court of Common Pleas and in the Court of King’s Bench for Quebec district; as a judge, he supported the continued use of French civil law. The Parti canadien on a number of occasions attempted to introduced legislation prohibiting judges from sitting in the legislature. In 1809, Lieutenant-governor James Henry Craig dissolved parliament as a result. In 1810, the assembly voted to declare his seat vacant. Again, the governor dissolved parliament. De Bonne retired as a judge in 1812. In 1805, de Bonne had married again after his first wife died in 1802, he died at his estate in Beauport in 1816 and left his estate to a relative. His second wife was unable to secure a pension from the government after de Bonne's death and committed suicide in a hospital for the insane in 1848.
"Pierre-Amable de Bonne". Dictionary of Canadian Biography. University of Toronto Press. 1979–2016. "Biography". Dictionnaire des parlementaires du Québec de 1792 à nos jours. National Assembly of Quebec
The 2011–12 Liga Nacional de Ascenso de Honduras season will be the 33rd season of the Liga Nacional de Ascenso de Honduras, the second division of football in Honduras. It will be contested by 28 teams divided into two zones with two divisions each; the season is split into the Apertura and the Clausura. At the end, the winners of both competitions will face off against each other in order to determine the team which will earn promotion to the First division for the 2012–13 season; the Apertura tournament started on 12 August 2011. Real Sociedad won 4–3 on aggregate. Hispano won 3–2 on aggregate. Parrillas One won 4–3 on aggregate. Atlético Municipal won 10–0 on aggregate. Real Sociedad won 5–1 on aggregate score. Hispano 3–3 Atlético Municipal on aggregate score. Real Sociedad won 4–0 on aggregate score. Parrillas One defeated Real Sociedad on aggregate score. Played between C. D. Real Sociedad and Parrillas One