The Art of War

[macbolan00]

now a question: before firearms, what technological/strategic/tactical development defined warfare between ancient fighting and that just before gunpowder?

[TheSmilingBandit]

now a question: before firearms, what technological/strategic/tactical development defined warfare between ancient fighting and that just before gunpowder?

Age of Bronze

Age of Iron

Development of linking chain armor <--- my own addition

Development of compound bows <--- my own addition

Age of Horseshoes <--- my own addition

Age of Gunpowder

[uaeboy25]

Age of Bronze

Age of Iron

Development of linking chain armor <--- my own addition

Development of compound bows <--- my own addition

Age of Horseshoes <--- my own addition

Age of Gunpowder

 

sa ngaun its all corporate war. nag simula nung world war 1. bakit nga ba nagkagiyera? sa world war 1 may company na yumaman dahil sa giyera.

[TheSmilingBandit]

sa ngaun its all corporate war. nag simula nung world war 1. bakit nga ba nagkagiyera? sa world war 1 may company na yumaman dahil sa giyera.

Ages of war has nothing to do with the background, rather any innovations that alter the face of warfare. Contrary to common belief, even the ancient Romans had a version of "corporate war" long before.

[macbolan00]

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.)

[TheSmilingBandit]

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.

[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.

[kisserfoxygirl]

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....

[TheSmilingBandit]

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?

[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 December 9, 2009 by megalodon

[TheSmilingBandit]

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?

[macbolan00]

they say the greatest general in history was belisarius of the byzantine. now there's a guy who won all his battle nearly outnumbered.

[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.

[TheSmilingBandit]

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).

[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.