The Art of War

[macbolan00]

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.

unfortunately, even american media men are not spared the stupidity. they apply it to all sorts of things like michael jordan to basketball, phelps to olympic swimming, etc. i suppose it sounds nice, even when used editorially.

 

you can use the qualifier only if the record appears "physically impossible" to surpass or, if there are likely no future contenders to the record. jordan has no record that looks remotely impossible to break (my greatest hoopster is still jabbar with chamberlain a close second.)

 

an example of the first is baseball great ty cobb whose lifetime hits amounted to such an impossible level, compared to past and present baseball players, that he was named by the guiness book to be the greatest batter of all time. his record for lifetime number of hits and lifetime batting average stood well after his death at an old age in 1961. but, writers didn't reckon on a player who would stick to professional baseball as long as pete rose. he broke ty cobb's hallowed record for number of hits in the 80s, more than 20 years after the latter's death. rose played many more years than cobb. and rose's lifetime batting average is nowhere near cobb's. so writers revised the pronouncement on cobb as "the greatest batter in history." rose has the most hits.

 

an example of the second instance is olympic wrestler tabb thacker who retired from wrestling with a fighting weight of 400 pounds. after that, the IOC put a cap on wrestlers' weight at 250 pounds, making thacker the heaviest olympian of all time.

 

and don't confuse "all-time" record with a record "for all time."

Edited December 10, 2009 by macbolan00

[TheSmilingBandit]

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.

Caesar did outgeneral Pompey in the civil war, though in my personal opinion that was because Pompey was saddled by the Senate of Rome.

[Guest megalodon]

Caesar did outgeneral Pompey in the civil war, though in my personal opinion that was because Pompey was saddled by the Senate of Rome.

So if Caesar and ATG went head to head, who's army would you think would be victorious?

[TheSmilingBandit]

So if Caesar and ATG went head to head, who's army would you think would be victorious?

I really don't know, which is why I was asking it here. I can (and have) debate both sides, citing examples of why so and so would be in so and so's favor, in the end though, I'm drawing a blank.

[Guest megalodon]

I really don't know, which is why I was asking it here. I can (and have) debate both sides, citing examples of why so and so would be in so and so's favor, in the end though, I'm drawing a blank.

I see. I gave my pick. Let's fast forward to the 20th century. All things being equal meaning both have the same armor: Apaches, Comanches, M1a1s, Bradleys, etc. Who do you think will win in desert warfare, the The Desert Fox or Fred Franks?

Edited December 10, 2009 by megalodon

[TheSmilingBandit]

I see. I gave my pick. Let's fast forward to the 20th century. All things being equal meaning both have the same armor: Apaches, Comanches, M1a1s, Bradleys, etc. Who do you think will win in desert warfare, the The Desert Fox or Fred Franks?

 

Rommel was a past master at stretching his supplies to the limit, he won many battles despite the odds against him. Franks seems to be good also, but then again with the overwhelming advantage of tech and supplies, not to mention forces against the Iraqis. For this, I'd say Rommel would win.

[macbolan00]

best horse-and-musket general. napoleon? duke of wellington? robert e. lee?

[TheSmilingBandit]

best horse-and-musket general. napoleon? duke of wellington? robert e. lee?

As an offensive general Napoleon is probably better than the Iron Duke, defensively Wellington tops out on the Corsican, Marse Lee was just better all around than most, if not all, of his contemporaries.

[macbolan00]

i found out only recently that lee's estate consisted of much of arlington cemetary. it was expropriated by the yankees. sad.

[TheSmilingBandit]

i found out only recently that lee's estate consisted of much of arlington cemetary. it was expropriated by the yankees. sad.

Actually a US Supreme Court decision returned the estate to the heirs of Marse Lee in 1878, however, it was sold back to the Federal Government a year later as a place to bury the dead for US150,000.00 (a very big amount back then.)

 

Hmmm ... I wonder though how any of the modern generals of today would have fared in warfare similar to that found during the American Civil War.

[macbolan00]

20th century warfare was won and lost through logistics (production and transport.) 18th and 19th century warfare was still the era of sea supremacy; the ability to outflank an enemy by whole latitudes or, in the case of the USCW, keep sea lanes open. it's a war won by presidents and kings, not generals. but if you'll ask me which general would have fared best for land fighting, i'll go with macarthur. he wasn't so great in mechanized but understood infantry fighting best.

[TheSmilingBandit]

20th century warfare was won and lost through logistics (production and transport.) 18th and 19th century warfare was still the era of sea supremacy; the ability to outflank an enemy by whole latitudes or, in the case of the USCW, keep sea lanes open. it's a war won by presidents and kings, not generals. but if you'll ask me which general would have fared best for land fighting, i'll go with macarthur. he wasn't so great in mechanized but understood infantry fighting best.

I don't know about that, all the campaigns I've read, everything was won or loss based on Logistics, for example Julian the Apostate won each and every battle he fought in, but because he burnt his own ships, was unable to support his army which caused his defeat and death.

 

Even Hannibal could barely support his armies, whereas the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, would build those stupendous roads to help move their supplies. Has anything changed today? I don't think so ... somehow it seems that logistics is still very important, Hitler's armies in North Africa and Russia lost because he couldn't supply them properly.

 

MacArthur? Hmmm ... interesting choice ... he was pretty darned good.

[macbolan00]

for one thing, macarthur remembers both world war 1 and even the pacification of the philippines (his dad's handiwork.)

 

ancient warfare depended in large part on one's capacity for "complete victory." to really defeat a nation, you destroy its army, prevent the creation of a new army, and in general weaken that country's capacity to wage war in the future. a strong logistics doesn't always accomplish this. armies then lived off the land! all genghis khan's cavalry needed to keep fighting were enough remounts (easy to keep well horses and capture new ones,) enough horse meat and milk to feed the troops (they were riding mobile food dispensers,) and grass for the horses (ok, avoid desert and tundra fighting.) hannibal hardly had anything to add to his force in italy, so what support would he have wanted? edward I, II, up to the black prince (who would have been edward III) had everything going for them in the 100 years they fought france. same thing with the british who tried to retain their US colonies. so why did they fail? in ancient times up to the 19th century, the mechanism of war dampened the effectiveness of "invasive" logistics. that's because your enemy, though he is fighting right in his front yard, can easily match your production at home. everything's even-steven as long as both sides are lined up and fighting. there was no concept of "strategic production." of course, kings could patiently wait up to 10 years to amass gold, troops, weapons and ships to mount a campaign but all that preparation, and subsequent support will be useless if you don't achieve total victory.

[TheSmilingBandit]

ancient warfare depended in large part on one's capacity for "complete victory." to really defeat a nation, you destroy its army, prevent the creation of a new army, and in general weaken that country's capacity to wage war in the future. a strong logistics doesn't always accomplish this. armies then lived off the land! all genghis khan's cavalry needed to keep fighting were enough remounts (easy to keep well horses and capture new ones,) enough horse meat and milk to feed the troops (they were riding mobile food dispensers,) and grass for the horses (ok, avoid desert and tundra fighting.) hannibal hardly had anything to add to his force in italy, so what support would he have wanted? edward I, II, up to the black prince (who would have been edward III) had everything going for them in the 100 years they fought france. same thing with the british who tried to retain their US colonies. so why did they fail? in ancient times up to the 19th century, the mechanism of war dampened the effectiveness of "invasive" logistics. that's because your enemy, though he is fighting right in his front yard, can easily match your production at home. everything's even-steven as long as both sides are lined up and fighting. there was no concept of "strategic production." of course, kings could patiently wait up to 10 years to amass gold, troops, weapons and ships to mount a campaign but all that preparation, and subsequent support will be useless if you don't achieve total victory.

Seriously? Hannibal needed to replace his dead and wounded, while he was able to recruit from the other Italian cities, if Carthage had been able to ship him reinforcements and replacements, as well as give him a secure source of supplies, then he would have won and conquered Rome.

 

Edward Longshanks and Edward II never fought in the Hundred Years War. Edward III (who's eldest son was nicknamed the Black Prince) did capture most of France, only to finally lose out when Henry VI gave up all rights to the French throne.

 

George III lost the New World colonies since the House of Commons voted to end the war, which had lost support due to the number of dead as well as the high cost of waging a war overseas, while George had the soldiers to fight it, he didn't have the money to support it logistically.

[Guest hastati]

Seriously? Hannibal needed to replace his dead and wounded, while he was able to recruit from the other Italian cities, if Carthage had been able to ship him reinforcements and replacements, as well as give him a secure source of supplies, then he would have won and conquered Rome.

The reason why Hannibal wasn't able to conquer Rome was coz he didn't have the siege equipment like onagers to break through its walls. But in a battlefield, the Romans couldn't take him out. It was only when Scipio Africanus took the war to Carthage when the Romans had success against Hannibal.