Whos military strategy wins?

[Crown]

It's 2 am here and I am about to say goodnight, but before I do...

In that case, Darius III has two weapon systems. HC - chariots, artillery, and HI - his soldiers. I do think Alexander employed chariots, and I'm fairly sure that a hoplite is a soldier in a phalanx.

No Darius III definetly had a larger range of military hardware than Alexander in each of their engagements, take which ever way you wish. The hoplite was the fore-runner to the phalanx, a soldier in a phalanx was a phalangite. And no Alexander didn't have chariots (not at Issus or Gaugamela at least) that was strictly Darius III. Infact his chariots were meant to cut up Alexander's phalanx, but Alexander simply ordered the phanax to merge (not the proper wording) allowed the chariots to pass through, and then butcher them when they were cut off from Darius III.

Those three phases were executed by Alexander during battle, but it was not hard(for him, anyway) to plan out what would need to be done to ensure victory and plot the course it would take beforehand.

And yes, Caesar did lead from the front, occasionally, but he also realized that it was far more important to have total control over your army at all times.

And he led from the front when it would achieve 'total control', which in Alexanders campaign against such odds was necessary at all times! That's what I am getting at here, Alexander had to be seen to risk his lives for his men, in order for them to follow him. Ceasar understood this when he nearly faced defeat, but Caesar unlike Alexander wasn't facing the same opponent (I am too tired to try and make sense now, but I think you know what I mean).

And? Alexander's phalanxes still relied on entirely on maintaining the cohesiveness of the front and the back line, which the Roman centurions did not.

Alexander's phalanx was far more manouevarble and flexible, as shown above. But the point remains that the Romans never faced a phalanx of Alexander's time, not a military genius of his caliber (except Hannibal, but he ultimately failed in strategy, even if as a tactician he was equal to Alexander).

So? It is still far from 'nothing'

Who said that Ceasar accomplished 'nothing'? I said that Ceasar broke down and wept in front of a statue of Alexander the Great in Spain when he realised that at 32 Alexander had conquered an Empire the size of present day America, and at that time more than half of the known world, while Ceasar at 40 had done nothing. Which is true, at 40 Ceasar hadn't even begun his campaigns.

Look if you want to read some of the books that I am getting my info from, they explain things far more eloquently than me (and not contradict themselves) try:

The Great Commanders: Alexander, Caesar, Nelson, Napoleon, Grant and Zhukov by Phil Grabsky, David G. Chandler

It has most of the points that I have been trying to make in them. Anyway if you reply, I will try and get back to you tomorrow. Good night!

[Stuart Mackey]

Napoleon was defeated not so much by his tactics, as the opposition not only outnumbered him, but had learned how he worked and would not stand to face him ,if they could, for one on one he could best them. N would advance on the Rusians ,they withdrew as the Austrians advanced somewhere else, and nothing seemed to stop the British comeing out from Spain. At his last battle, even had he won, it was a moot point as his own government had deposed him behind his back. That and the Austrians/Russians would have pulverised him with numbers alone.

All very true, but not to what I was refering to. Waterloo, Napoleon was out maneouvered by (I forget his name, Englis guy), using a classic Napoleon tactic. That's what I meant about being defeated by his own tactics, I will try and borrow the book I read it from and expand on this.

The name you seek is Wellington, and it is not true that Wellington outmanouvoured Napoleon at Waterloo.
For the French Waterloo was very much a comedy, or tradgdy of errors, more than Wellington besting N. First of, General Grouchy {sp?} was charged with preventing the union of the Prussian army, under Blucher, with the allied army, and Grouchy failed. The French commited too many troops to unnesary assults, for example, Hougoumont. Also with N being sick, and Neys unsupported cavary charges, lack of co-ordination and lack of clear leadership broke the French.

Allthough the french very nearly did defeat Wellingtons allied army, via attrition and not manouvour, {"Give me night or give me Blucher"} Bluchers timely arrival prevented a allied defeat. Ultimatly Wellington had a poor quality army that day, and the French made far too many errors in leadership and judgement.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem in the scenario is that all of these leaders were especially talented in leading the forces that they commanded. Alexander, for example, led from the front. He was one of his own best soldiers, leading his forces through example. That would not work well at all during a modern conflict with assault rifles. It would similarly be ineffective during a conflict with aircraft and artillery exchanging fire. Other leaders would have similar problems in different times with different weapons.

[Sienthal]

I believe Vo Nguyen Giap would be the best leader. Don't know who he is?
He was the leader of the Vietnamese forces during their liberation, and the leader of the North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam conflict. His tactics were both brutally effective and financially sound.

[Stuart Mackey]

I believe Vo Nguyen Giap would be the best leader. Don't know who he is?
He was the leader of the Vietnamese forces during their liberation, and the leader of the North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam conflict. His tactics were both brutally effective and financially sound.

Giap has proved that you fit your forces for the circumstance that they find themselfs in. Giap could never hope to fight the Americans on their terms and win, so, with one exception, he didnt bother.

[Master of Ossus]

I believe Vo Nguyen Giap would be the best leader. Don't know who he is?
He was the leader of the Vietnamese forces during their liberation, and the leader of the North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam conflict. His tactics were both brutally effective and financially sound.

But he never won a battle against the Americans. Even at Khe Sanh, when the Americans were in huge trouble, beleagered, completely surrounded and beseiged he could not deal the death blow. Further, his only real strategic venture was the horribly costly and utterly (from a military perspective) self-destructive Tet Offensive. Like almost all leaders, he fell into the trap of being a great tactician and a poor strategist. Napoleon, especially, fell into this trap. Of the leaders we have, the one who avoided it most readily was Alexander, but even he had his strategic failings. The changing face of battle makes evaluating generals nearly impossible, but Alexander was almost certainly the best military commander of all time, though he would be wholly ineffective today. He was so far ahead of his time in his movements of troops and careful tactical control of his forces that he made other commanders look silly in comparison, even if they were quite capable in and of themselves. I have difficulty giving him a victory in this particular scenario because his basic strategies and tactics would not be effective with more modern weapons, but I have no doubt that he is the best commander of all time.

[Stuart Mackey]

I believe Vo Nguyen Giap would be the best leader. Don't know who he is?
He was the leader of the Vietnamese forces during their liberation, and the leader of the North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam conflict. His tactics were both brutally effective and financially sound.

But he never won a battle against the Americans. Even at Khe Sanh, when the Americans were in huge trouble, beleagered, completely surrounded and beseiged he could not deal the death blow. Further, his only real strategic venture was the horribly costly and utterly (from a military perspective) self-destructive Tet Offensive. Like almost all leaders, he fell into the trap of being a great tactician and a poor strategist. snip

This is true, but it is also more than likly that Giap and Uncle Ho, knew that it was, as they say, irrelivant.

[Master of Ossus]

This is true, but it is also more than likly that Giap and Uncle Ho, knew that it was, as they say, irrelivant.

So, squandering half of your men and nearly all of your heavy equipment on ONE offensive, and losing every single battle, is irrelevent? They had stockpiled supplies for that offensive for more than eight months, and it failed miserably. Giap was clearly trying to knock the Americans out of the war with one offensive. He said later that he had been trying to overrun between two and five of the American positions, and he thought that that would win the war. He did not anticipate losing anywhere near that many soldiers, as he later confessed (although he did add that the American estimates of his losses were high, and that he did not at first recognize the magnitude of his defeat).

I also don't see why this makes him more worthy of merit than any of the other commanders who we named above, or even some of the unnamed ones, like the ones that led the Celts during their repulsion of the first Roman invasion, or the Finnish commanders during the Winter War, or even many of the Greek, Roman, and modern generals. Even General Schwartzkopf was able to develop a FAR more convincing victory with a much better casualty ratio, and a MUCH more clean and quick war. That was against the best air-defense network that the world has ever seen, and it was against one of the world's largest armies (though certainly not the most powerful, man for man).

[Darth Eris]

If you're talking about the best strategist, then Sun Tzu. Best field military commander... eh, don't have much of an opinion there. But don't let me interrupt your debate.

[CmdrWilkens]

My vote goes to Gaius Julius Caesar. He swept through most of what would become the Western Roman Empire and conquered like it was going out of style. He might not have been Hannibal but he knew how to get his men to do extraordinary things.

My second vote would go to Hannibal. his double envelopment at cannae is still one of the most amazing examples of perfection in command and execution yet though soem of the Mongol Genreals of a millenia and a half later would come close.

[Stuart Mackey]

This is true, but it is also more than likly that Giap and Uncle Ho, knew that it was, as they say, irrelivant.

So, squandering half of your men and nearly all of your heavy equipment on ONE offensive, and losing every single battle, is irrelevent? They had stockpiled supplies for that offensive for more than eight months, and it failed miserably. Giap was clearly trying to knock the Americans out of the war with one offensive. He said later that he had been trying to overrun between two and five of the American positions, and he thought that that would win the war. He did not anticipate losing anywhere near that many soldiers, as he later confessed (although he did add that the American estimates of his losses were high, and that he did not at first recognize the magnitude of his defeat).

Who won that war? what kind of government rules Veitnam? Ie, Tet was irrelivant, you can win as many battles as you like but if you dont acheive the objective of the war then it all counts for nothing.

[Stuart Mackey]

If you're talking about the best strategist, then Sun Tzu.

Mr Tzu is one of many. There is also Jomini and Clauswitz, and of course Guderian, Liddel Heart.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is true, but it is also more than likly that Giap and Uncle Ho, knew that it was, as they say, irrelivant.

So, squandering half of your men and nearly all of your heavy equipment on ONE offensive, and losing every single battle, is irrelevent? They had stockpiled supplies for that offensive for more than eight months, and it failed miserably. Giap was clearly trying to knock the Americans out of the war with one offensive. He said later that he had been trying to overrun between two and five of the American positions, and he thought that that would win the war. He did not anticipate losing anywhere near that many soldiers, as he later confessed (although he did add that the American estimates of his losses were high, and that he did not at first recognize the magnitude of his defeat).

Who won that war? what kind of government rules Veitnam? Ie, Tet was irrelivant, you can win as many battles as you like but if you dont acheive the objective of the war then it all counts for nothing.

Objective was the curb the spread of communism. The objective was archived, though there was no success in reversing the tide. Or are you going to argue that Thailand is in fact communist?

[Stuart Mackey]

Who won that war? what kind of government rules Veitnam? Ie, Tet was irrelivant, you can win as many battles as you like but if you dont acheive the objective of the war then it all counts for nothing.

Objective was the curb the spread of communism. The objective was archived, though there was no success in reversing the tide. Or are you going to argue that Thailand is in fact communist?

Thats just rationlising defeat.