Flanking Maneuver
metaphor established
Source: Military History → Competition, Argumentation
Categories: leadership-and-management
From: Napoleon's Military Maxims
Transfers
A flanking maneuver is an attack directed at the side or rear of an enemy force rather than its fortified front. The logic is geometric: a defensive position is strongest where it faces the expected axis of attack. Troops dig in, artillery is sighted, obstacles are placed. But every defensive line has edges, and behind every front is a rear area organized for supply, not combat. The flanking attacker seeks to convert the defender’s strength into a liability by arriving where the defenses are not.
Napoleon was a master of the maneuver sur les derrieres — moving a force around the enemy’s flank to threaten their line of retreat, which typically forced them to fight at a disadvantage or withdraw. Austerlitz (1805) is the textbook case: Napoleon deliberately weakened his right flank to lure the allied coalition into attacking it, then struck their exposed center and left with his concentrated reserve.
Key structural parallels:
-
Strength is directional, not absolute — the central structural import is that defensive power is concentrated along expected axes and thin everywhere else. A competitor’s market position, a debater’s argument, or a regulation’s enforcement all have a “front” where resistance is strongest and a “flank” where it is weakest. The metaphor transfers the insight that the hardest approach is not always the most effective, and that apparent strength can coexist with structural vulnerability. In business, this maps to entering a market through an adjacent category that the incumbent considers peripheral: Amazon flanked traditional retailers through books (low margin, high SKU count, poorly served by physical stores) rather than attacking their core categories head-on.
-
Speed and surprise over mass — flanking does not require the flanking force to be stronger than the defender. It requires the flanking force to arrive before the defender can reorient. The structural transfer is that timing and positioning can substitute for resources. A startup cannot outspend an incumbent but can move faster into a segment the incumbent has not fortified. In argumentation, a flanking move addresses the premises or assumptions underlying an opponent’s position rather than the conclusion, arriving at the vulnerable point before the opponent recognizes which assumptions are under attack.
-
Forcing a multi-axis response — the deepest structural effect of a successful flanking maneuver is that the defender must now fight in two directions simultaneously. The front is still engaged; the flank now demands attention. The defender’s organizational structure, optimized for a single axis, breaks down under the requirement to respond in multiple directions at once. This transfers to competitive dynamics where a company forces a rival to defend both its core market and an adjacent one, splitting attention and resources in the pattern described by “war on two fronts.”
-
The maneuver redefines the battlefield — a successful flanking attack does not just damage the defender at one point; it changes the entire geometry of the engagement. The defender’s fortifications, built to face one direction, become irrelevant. Investments in frontal defense are stranded. In business strategy, this is the dynamic where a flanking entrant redefines what customers value, making the incumbent’s advantages (scale, brand, distribution) less relevant. Netflix did not outcompete Blockbuster at running video rental stores; it flanked the entire store model.
Limits
-
“Flank” is a spatial metaphor with no spatial referent — in military reality, flanks exist because troops face a specific direction and cannot simultaneously fire forward and backward. Markets and arguments do not have geometric flanks. When a business analyst says a company was “flanked,” they mean it was surprised by competition from an unexpected direction, but the directionality is metaphorical and imprecise. The concept of an “undefended side” in business is not a geometric fact but an analytic judgment that may be wrong.
-
The flanking force is vulnerable — in military operations, the force sent around the flank is typically smaller, separated from the main body, and at risk of being detected and destroyed. Stonewall Jackson’s flank march at Chancellorsville succeeded brilliantly, but Jackson was killed by friendly fire during the confusion. In business usage, the risk to the flanking unit is almost always understated. Entering an adjacent market is presented as clever strategy, but the resources committed to the flanking effort are exposed and cannot easily be recalled if the maneuver fails.
-
It assumes the front is too strong to attack — the entire rationale for flanking is that a direct assault on the defended position would be too costly. But sometimes the front is weaker than it appears, and the direct approach would work. The metaphor can encourage elaborate indirect strategies when a straightforward competitive response would suffice. Not every market leader has a strong “front”; some are vulnerable to direct competition and the flanking metaphor wastes time on cleverness that is not needed.
-
Survivorship bias in flanking narratives — the famous flanking maneuvers (Austerlitz, Chancellorsville, Inchon) are famous because they succeeded. The many flanking attempts that were detected and crushed are forgotten. Business writing that invokes the flanking metaphor tends to select only the successful cases, creating a misleading impression that indirect approaches are reliably superior to direct competition.
Expressions
- “Flanking the competition” — entering a market from an unexpected direction rather than competing head-to-head
- “Outflanked” — surprised by a competitor’s move into an undefended segment or capability
- “End run” — American football variant of the same spatial logic, used in business and politics for circumventing rather than confronting opposition
- “Attacking from the side” — informal variant emphasizing the lateral approach
- “Maneuver warfare” — the broader military doctrine that privileges flanking and envelopment over frontal attrition, used in business strategy literature (especially Liddell Hart-influenced writing)
Origin Story
Flanking is among the oldest tactical concepts in warfare. Epaminondas of Thebes used an oblique order at Leuctra (371 BCE) to concentrate force on one wing while refusing the other, destroying the Spartan army’s elite troops before the rest could engage. Hannibal’s double envelopment at Cannae (216 BCE) remains the most studied flanking maneuver in military history, where a smaller Carthaginian force destroyed a Roman army nearly twice its size by drawing the Roman center forward while cavalry enveloped both flanks.
Napoleon elevated flanking to the level of operational art through his maneuver sur les derrieres, using corps-level formations to march around enemy flanks and threaten lines of communication. His maxims repeatedly emphasize concentration of force at the decisive point while fixing the enemy’s attention elsewhere. The concept entered business strategy primarily through Al Ries and Jack Trout’s Marketing Warfare (1986), which explicitly mapped military flanking to competitive positioning, and through the broader influence of John Boyd’s OODA loop framework.
References
- Napoleon. Military Maxims — the principle of maneuver on the enemy’s communications
- Liddell Hart, B.H. Strategy (1954) — the “indirect approach” as the superior form of strategy
- Ries, A. and Trout, J. Marketing Warfare (1986) — direct application of flanking to competitive strategy
- Freedman, L. Strategy: A History (2013) — the intellectual history of flanking as a strategic concept
Related Entries
Structural Neighbors
Entries from different domains that share structural shape. Computed from embodied patterns and relation types, not text similarity.
- Trojan War (mythology/archetype)
- Psychological States Are Warfare (war/metaphor)
- Trade Is Slaughter (killing/metaphor)
- Every Scene Is a Chase Scene (pursuit-and-escape/metaphor)
- Words Are Weapons (war/metaphor)
- Concentration of Force (military-command/mental-model)
- Never Do What the Enemy Wishes (/mental-model)
- The Hero (mythology/archetype)
Structural Tags
Patterns: center-peripherypathforce
Relations: competetransform
Structure: competition Level: generic
Contributors: agent:metaphorex-miner