Jump to content

The Art of War


Recommended Posts

my own theory would be the rise of the professional army. the romans were ahead in this respect but career militants showed themselves to be most efficient during the height of the byzantine empire (600-1000,) the english army under the plantagenets (including the 100-year war,) and the ottomans. the mongolian hordes were an exception (still largely paid in booty, commanded by an autocracy.)

 

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

 

I know that a lot of people would like to think of the Mongolian hordes as a bunch of ill-disciplined horse nomads that conquered because of overwhelming force, but that is a fallacy. The Mongol tuomens were highly organized, the 10,000 horsemen in it divided into 10 mingyans (1,000 horsemen) further subdivided into 10 shuuts (100 horsemen) which is composed of 10 arbats (10 horsemen). Each warrior had at least 2 remounts to facilitate travel and combat, the mounts used were all mares so that they can be milked, raw beef was placed between the saddle and the saddle-blankets to soften the tough cuts of meat (hence steak tartare). A Mongolian Hordu is composed of 2 to 5 toumens, and would have additional remounts to equip all their soldiers. Promotion was based entirely on merit (with the exception of Ghengis Khan's family which got high ranks, but even then the actual command devolved to experienced soldiers) and they definitely recruited from captive populations. They had a good system of military intelligence and even a propaganda corps to help magnify the strength and ferocity of their armies.

Link to comment
Guest megalodon
Very interesting, I must admit I tended to concentrate more on the strategic and logistical level with only some interest in the tactical level and almost none at all in the field level.

 

So who would win Alexander the Great's army vs. the Legions of Rome (1st Triumvirate period). This is a subject that I've shifted side so many times I sometimes argue with myself about it.

I'd pick Alexander the Great over any Roman general. Even the great Caesar himself. But if Alexander the Great went up against Hannibal the Annihilator, I'd have a hard time picking who but my bet would be on Hannibal since he had war elephants which was antiquity's version of an M1A1.

Link to comment
try this 'what if':

 

Bismark vs. Yamato

 

explain your stand.

 

 

there was a game that came out Navyfield.....the had the bizmark and also the yamato featured.....

 

 

of course bizmark ako ....stupid kasi yung captain ng yamato....never engaged the ship in any kind of combat....so makita palang ng crew ng yamato ang bizmark tatakbo na sila....

Link to comment
I'd pick Alexander the Great over any Roman general. Even the great Caesar himself. But if Alexander the Great went up against Hannibal the Annihilator, I'd have a hard time picking who but my bet would be on Hannibal since he had war elephants which was antiquity's version of an M1A1.
In the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander's army went up against an estimated 200 war elephants, needless to say he did win that battle also.

 

there was a game that came out Navyfield.....the had the bizmark and also the yamato featured.....

 

of course bizmark ako ....stupid kasi yung captain ng yamato....never engaged the ship in any kind of combat....so makita palang ng crew ng yamato ang bizmark tatakbo na sila....

Okay, so you think that the Yamato's crew was cowardly? Care to show any form of proof that is the case?
Link to comment
Guest megalodon
In the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander's army went up against an estimated 200 war elephants, needless to say he did win that battle also.

Who was Alexander the Great going up against in that battle? Going up against perhaps the greatest general of all-time, Hannibal, would be a different story. The Romans could not beat him force on force so Scipio Africanus had to be insidious and attack Hannibal's center of gravity which is Carthage, which forced Hannibal to go back and defend it. Scipio knew he couldn't beat Hannibal in a confronatation so he had to think of another way. The Romans beat him in the Battle of Zama since they took away Carthage's food supply by ravaging the fertile lands that the Carthaginians used for planting food thus depriving Hannibal and his army of a basic necessity which led him to surrender to the Romans.

Edited by megalodon
Link to comment
Who was Alexander the Great going up against in that battle? Going up against perhaps the greatest general of all-time, Hannibal, would be a different story. The Romans could not beat him force on force so Scipio Africanus had to be insidious and attack Hannibal's center of gravity which is Carthage, which forced Hannibal to go back and defend it. Scipio knew he couldn't beat Hannibal in a confronatation so he had to think of another way. The Romans beat him in the Battle of Zama since they took away Carthage's food supply by ravaging the fertile lands that the Carthaginians used for planting food thus depriving Hannibal and his army of a basic necessity which led him to surrender to the Romans.
How do you define Hannibal as the greatest general of all time?
Link to comment
Guest megalodon
How do you define Hannibal as the greatest general of all time?

I think Hannibal is the greatest general of all-time coz the most disciplined army of antiquity, the Romans, couldn't beat him in a face to face battle. He was a great tactician and the master of the unorthodox. Case in point, Hannibal did the unthinkable by crossing the seemingly unpassable Alps to attack Rome. The Romans never expected this since they thought that the Alps was unpassable thus they left that part of the way to Rome unguarded. The Alps had many boulders which impeded Hannibal but he found a way to get through these boulders by heating them up then pouring vinegar to melt the boulders. He was also a great engineer.

Link to comment
I think Hannibal is the greatest general of all-time coz the most disciplined army of antiquity, the Romans, couldn't beat him in a face to face battle. He was a great tactician and the master of the unorthodox. Case in point, Hannibal did the unthinkable by crossing the seemingly unpassable Alps to attack Rome. The Romans never expected this since they thought that the Alps was unpassable thus they left that part of the way to Rome unguarded. The Alps had many boulders which impeded Hannibal but he found a way to get through these boulders by heating them up then pouring vinegar to melt the boulders. He was also a great engineer.

 

The greatest generals of antiquity did include Hannibal, but also Alexander the Great, Caesar, Scipio Africanus, and Pyrrhus (who was also never beaten by the Romans).

Link to comment
Guest megalodon
The greatest generals of antiquity did include Hannibal, but also Alexander the Great, Caesar, Scipio Africanus, and Pyrrhus (who was also never beaten by the Romans).

I agree but when you say greatest, the one who comes into mind is Hannibal. Pyrrhus was never beaten but in his last battle with the Romans, he suffered heavy losses although he won the battle thus the term "Pyhrric victory" which means shallow victory.

 

The thing is Hannibal won every battle with the Romans but eventually lost the war coz his grand strategy was to take Rome and destroy it. He never did. Siguro naglalaro ka din ng Rome Total War.

Link to comment
I agree but when you say greatest, the one who comes into mind is Hannibal. Pyrrhus was never beaten but in his last battle with the Romans, he suffered heavy losses although he won the battle thus the term "Pyhrric victory" which means shallow victory.

 

The thing is Hannibal won every battle with the Romans but eventually lost the war coz his grand strategy was to take Rome and destroy it. He never did. Siguro naglalaro ka din ng Rome Total War.

So in effect, though Hannibal won the battles (except for his last), he lost the war, not because he was an inferior general but because Carthage didn't support him. Pyrrhus too won all his battles, but he lost so much men that in the end it didn't matter. Just like Hannibal, the other Hellenic cities didn't support him, so his victories would end up as naught as well.

 

FYI: Hannibal considered Alexander and Pyrrhus as the greatest generals to have lived according to Plutarch and Appian, he modeled his campaigns after those two.

 

Rome: Total War is a pretty good game if only the AI were decent. As were Shogun: Total War, Medieval: Total War (1 and 2), and Empire: Total War.

Link to comment
Guest megalodon
So in effect, though Hannibal won the battles (except for his last), he lost the war, not because he was an inferior general but because Carthage didn't support him. Pyrrhus too won all his battles, but he lost so much men that in the end it didn't matter. Just like Hannibal, the other Hellenic cities didn't support him, so his victories would end up as naught as well.

 

FYI: Hannibal considered Alexander and Pyrrhus as the greatest generals to have lived according to Plutarch and Appian, he modeled his campaigns after those two.

 

Rome: Total War is a pretty good game if only the AI were decent. As were Shogun: Total War, Medieval: Total War (1 and 2), and Empire: Total War.

I stand corrected. Since he really didn't achieve his grand strategy of conquering Rome, he can't be considered the greatest general of all-time. I would give that label to Alexander the Great. I mean Alexander annihilated the Persians, the Axis of the East at that point in time.

 

It's not that Carthage didn't support Hannibal but coz Scipio ravaged the food supply of Carthage by resorting to guerilla tactics without really facing off with Hannibal until he was sure that he could beat Hannibal through attrition.

Link to comment
I stand corrected. Since he really didn't achieve his grand strategy of conquering Rome, he can't be considered the greatest general of all-time. I would give that label to Alexander the Great. I mean Alexander annihilated the Persians, the Axis of the East at that point in time.

 

It's not that Carthage didn't support Hannibal but coz Scipio ravaged the food supply of Carthage by resorting to guerilla tactics without really facing off with Hannibal until he was sure that he could beat Hannibal through attrition.

For 15 years Hannibal ranged throughout Italy, if Carthage had given him the soldiers and equipment that he needed to besiege Rome, they could have won and history wouldn't be the same again.
Link to comment
Guest megalodon
For 15 years Hannibal ranged throughout Italy, if Carthage had given him the soldiers and equipment that he needed to besiege Rome, they could have won and history wouldn't be the same again.

The thing is the shortest route from Rome to Carthage, the Mediterranean Sea, was blockaded by Rome. It would be too costly for Carthage to send troops via the Alps. Hannibal terrorized Italy for 10-15 years with ragtag troops (Spanish, Libyan, Carthaginian, Gauls, Numidians, etc.). Also, Hannibal didn't have siege weapons like the onager to break the walls of Rome. The onager was the ancient world's tomahawk missile.

Link to comment
The thing is the shortest route from Rome to Carthage, the Mediterranean Sea, was blockaded by Rome. It would be too costly for Carthage to send troops via the Alps. Hannibal terrorized Italy for 10-15 years with ragtag troops (Spanish, Libyan, Carthaginian, Gauls, Numidians, etc.). Also, Hannibal didn't have siege weapons like the onager to break the walls of Rome. The onager was the ancient world's tomahawk missile.
Which is why Hannibal is counted among the great generals of history, with such troops he was able to survive and win for 15 years in enemy territory.
Link to comment
Guest megalodon
Which is why Hannibal is counted among the great generals of history, with such troops he was able to survive and win for 15 years in enemy territory.

Ok. He's the second greatest after Alexander the Great. He was the most feared enemy general of Rome. An interesting war would have been Alexander's Greece vs. Caesar/Pompey/Crassus' Rome. I'd pick Alexander over the Triumvirate.

Link to comment
Ok. He's the second greatest after Alexander the Great. He was the most feared enemy general of Rome. An interesting war would have been Alexander's Greece vs. Caesar/Pompey/Crassus' Rome. I'd pick Alexander over the Triumvirate.
That's my dilemma, both sides have good points, I just can't seem to find any single thing that will swing a decision decisively in this situation.

 

er... just a suggestion: never use "of all time" as a qualifier. it's senseless. only half-witted fans of michael jordan talk like that. peace.

I did say one of the great generals of history.

 

Antiquity had 4 such famous generals

Alexandros Megaira

Pyrrhus of Epirus

Hannibal of Carthage

Gaius Julius Caesar

 

Medieval period wasn't quite as generous

Edward I of England

Belisarius of Byzantium

Genghis Khan

 

The next set were

Napoleon

Suvorov

The Iron Duke

Of course, there is always Carl Gustav of Sweden

 

This is all in my opinion of course.

 

Edited by TheSmilingBandit
Link to comment
Guest megalodon

I'm giving the advantage to Alexander the Great mainly coz of the countries he conquered.

 

@macbolan

 

The phrase "of all-time" was used by historians in the History channel when they described Hannibal.

Link to comment
Guest megalodon
Why? Seriously, a comparison of troop ability and command ability of the other leaders are pretty equal. If it is just about nations conquered the Roman armies expanded their territories a lot more than the Macedonians.

Yup but Alexander clobbered armies that had more or less a peer of Greece when it came to warfare. Persia was kingpin of the East until Darius made the mistake of going head to head with Alexander.

Link to comment
The leaders and their countries.

 

At the height of Alexander's empire, he had conquered (or inherited) control of most of Greece, pretty much all of the Persian Empire: Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and Bactria with even parts of northwestern India under his domain.

 

The First Roman Triumvirate controlled most of Southern Europe and Northern Africa (Iberia, Gaul, Italy, Greece, Mauretania, Numidia, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor)

 

Comparing production of food, the Roman Republic would have a bigger breadbasket, on the other hand, they also had a bigger population to feed. Arms and armor were pretty much equal, and though the standing Roman army was more professional, I'm not certain that against the enthusiasm and esprit-de-corps of Alexander's fighting units, they wouldn't be balanced out.

 

Alexander is definitely a better over-all tactician and strategist than Caesar and Pompey, though Crassus certainly understood logistics better if only he could accept that he was not a battlefield general.

 

Alexander's edge is that he could make decisions solely on his desires whereas the Triumvirate still had to decide as a group which policies to enact.

Link to comment
Guest megalodon
Alexander is definitely a better over-all tactician and strategist than Caesar and Pompey, though Crassus certainly understood logistics better if only he could accept that he was not a battlefield general.

 

Alexander's edge is that he could make decisions solely on his desires whereas the Triumvirate still had to decide as a group which policies to enact.[/color][/size][/font][/i]

I agree with you on these points. But the best among the Triumvirate was Caesar. Remember he defeated Pompey in the Roman civil war and to think Pompey was already considered a great tactician.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...