Whos military strategy wins?

[Larz]

Whos military strategy would win over all?

Conditions: Army of 1000 men each. There are no specialty units, just standard infantry. Armarments must be universal in all armies, if one army has blasters, they all have blasters. The battle would be ground based (to even the odds for our classical military leaders). Discuss!

[Spoonist]

Your conditions are flawed.

You must have a specific set of weapons and terrain to make any sense of your question.

For instance, Alexander the Great wouldn't realise the effect of blasters.

[Larz]

Perhaps... but if we gave everyone the weapons and tech of there age then Yoda with his blaster armed troops would paint the battlefield in blood without effort... unless you think a scalemail wearing, sword bearing Mesodonian is going to do much against a man with a blaster. Just improvise, anway, it doesn't take much to realize the potential of having such weapons (pull trigger, if kills person holding weapon turn other way...)

[Lagmonster]

I think you're trying to ask who the best tactician is. All the best tacticians are the leaders who have devised cunning strategems against specific problems. Alexandre the Great, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Hannibal, they're not really great tacticians. Some of them just happened to be on the technological forefront of warfare for their time. Others had access to more troops who had more in-depth training.

Your scenario depicts identical troops with identical weapons and abilities on a level playing field, but wars are won and lost on the ability of the individual soldiers, too. Say they're all the equivalent of Norman infantry backed by peasant forces and archers, and a small host of cavalry.

When you know it's going to come down to close range combat, strategy and tactics are only useful BEFORE a battle has been joined. After that, it tends to devolve into one-on-one combat. So frankly, the winner would be the one who was smart enough to establish a strong defensive formation, withhold committing his troops the longest, so as to maintain numerical advantage and be able to slaughter a host of exhausted, weakened opponents with (hopefully) a host of fresh troops. I don't think it matters who is behind the helm.

[Ted]

Napoleon was the greates STRATEGIST of his time and of all times practically, he may have seemed like a tactician but that was only because he set up his enemies such that he could defeat them in detail (defeat one at a time).

[HemlockGrey]

Narses and Belisarius.

[NecronLord]

Thrawn is based on Napoleon, though he is slightly better than Napoleon (no russian invasion for thrawn...

Yoda is an awful general. Would you like to fight under "If you aren't a Jedi you are expendable" Yoda?

[Mr. Mister]

Umm... I fail to understand what's so amazingly horrible about Yoda committing clone troopers to die to save Jedi. How is that any different, than, say, protective security details crouding around their charge in order to block bullets with their body?

[Sea Skimmer]

Umm... I fail to understand what's so amazingly horrible about Yoda committing clone troopers to die to save Jedi. How is that any different, than, say, protective security details crouding around their charge in order to block bullets with their body?

Especially given that the Jedi would have saved quite a few clones lives later in the ground attack on the core ships, and that the operation still had to be conducted to nab the leaders of the separatists and destroy the driod army.

Yodas ability to see the future would be most useful, though how we'll he would acutally do it highly in doubt.

[Lagmonster]

Yodas ability to see the future would be most useful, though how we'll he would acutally do it highly in doubt.

I see Yoda as an EXCELLENT person (or thing) to have on your side in the *middle* of combat, due to his Jedi prescience and ability to 'sense' changes in the battlefield and direct troops accordingly. In fact, in a military sense, I peg Jedi as superb field commanders, not overall planners or strategists. In fact, throughout the movies, they tend to make a crapload of tactically stupid decisions.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Not to mention that let's say the weapons of choice were those of Alexander the Great, then Yoda could Force push all of the spears and different types of throwing weapons away from his own army. He could Force push his own army's spears into the other army with startling accuracy. He could do much with the Force to win.

[Howedar]

Assuming he has that great of control over the Force, which I doubt.

[Tosho]

VIVE L'EMPEURER!!!



Edit: for those who can't see the picture http://www.napoleonguide.com/napgal_battle.htm

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Assuming he has that great of control over the Force, which I doubt.

If Vader was able to, I guarantee Yoda would be able to.

[Guest]

Yoda wins, Star Wars has alread proven there are Jedi Techniques to improve an armies Co-Ordination, there i challange anyone to doubt the words ot Tim Zhan

[HemlockGrey]

Belisarius, goddamit, belisarius!

[Ironwolf]

I think Napolean would have a little trouble against Victor Ian Steiner-Davion if it were a group of 1000 elementals againt eachother no matter how good a stragest he is. But thats just my oppinion.

[Crown]

Excuse the fuck out of me, but are we all forgetting that Alexander the Great at roughly 330 BC, conquered an area the size of America with an army of 75,000 troops? Defeated an enemy whose armies stood at the million mark? Napoleon was a git, he got defeated by his own fucking tactics! Alexander was not beaten on the field, he died at 32 a legend for all time.

Alexander the Great all the way.

[Stuart Mackey]

Excuse the fuck out of me, but are we all forgetting that Alexander the Great at roughly 330 BC, conquered an area the size of America with an army of 75,000 troops? Defeated an enemy whose armies stood at the million mark? Napoleon was a git, he got defeated by his own fucking tactics! Alexander was not beaten on the field, he died at 32 a legend for all time.

Alexander the Great all the way.

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.

Of course, one should never use Napoleon to distract from Alexander, just remember that they were in different times with different imperitives.

[HemlockGrey]

Excuse the fuck out of me, but are we all forgetting that Alexander the Great at roughly 330 BC, conquered an area the size of America with an army of 75,000 troops? Defeated an enemy whose armies stood at the million mark? Napoleon was a git, he got defeated by his own fucking tactics! Alexander was not beaten on the field, he died at 32 a legend for all time.

Alexander the Great all the way.

No. Alexander the Great used a three-weapon system, as opposed to a combined four-weapon system; thus, Nappy's army is inherently superior. Furthermore, Alexander the Great never kept a reserve force.

What tilts it more in the other general's favor is that Alexander led from the front. He would make an elaborate plan and commit his forces to battle, but once the battle was joined, he had very limited or no control over his forces.

On the other hand, someone like Caesar, especially during the Gallic wars and the campaigns against Pompey, led both from the front and the rear, charging forward to bolster morale and then falling back to direct his forces; thus, he had the capability ot reinforcing a flagging line, directing reserves to attack an enemy's weak point, etc. This is partially due to the well-articulated nature of the Roman legions, but partially because he was just a damn good commander.

[Crown]

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.

No. Alexander the Great used a three-weapon system, as opposed to a combined four-weapon system; thus, Nappy's army is inherently superior. Furthermore, Alexander the Great never kept a reserve force.

That's not a good argument. Napoleons army is inherently superior just based on weapons alone. But we are talking about who is the greatest tactician/strategist in the world, not who had the better weapons. And as for reserves; 75,000 soldiers facing off 1:4 odds, and still wins!

What tilts it more in the other general's favor is that Alexander led from the front. He would make an elaborate plan and commit his forces to battle, but once the battle was joined, he had very limited or no control over his forces.

Not true. In the first engagement against Darius, as we all should know was at Issus. That was a no brainer, on the his right was a ridge of un-passable mountains, and on his left the sea. What tactics were there besides, draw a line in the ground, and then slug it out? However the battle of Gaugamela was an entirely egg of baskets.

Gaugamela was a wide open field where strength of numbers should have won the day. Alexanders army was outnumbered 5:1! To quote from 'The Wars of the Ancient Greeks' by Victor Davis Hanson, "Both Persian wings outflanked the Macedonians by more than a mile, and tough Greek mercenaries and elephants were prepared to crack Alexander's centre."

Now despite the tarrain not being in his favour, despite being grossley outnumbered, and despite the fact that Darius III had more elements in his army, Alexander still won!

He did this (very roughly covered by me here) by co-ordinating an anticlockwise spin of his forces during egagement, to negate Darius III's huge size advantage, and managed to crack his enemies center and win the day. This shows that he did more than set his plans and then rush into battle. He rushes into battle when he realises 2 things. That being that it is now the moment to seize the victory or embrase defeat.

On the other hand, someone like Caesar, especially during the Gallic wars and the campaigns against Pompey, led both from the front and the rear, charging forward to bolster morale and then falling back to direct his forces; thus, he had the capability ot reinforcing a flagging line, directing reserves to attack an enemy's weak point, etc. This is partially due to the well-articulated nature of the Roman legions, but partially because he was just a damn good commander.

Yes Ceasar did indeed do that. He was after all a politician first and formost. Ceasar also wept at the feet of a statue of Alexander the Great when in Spain, when he realised that at 32 Alexander had conquered most of the known world, and he at 40 had done nothing.

[HemlockGrey]

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.

But Napolean was not easily defeated. Waterloo was a bloody, massive battle, not a one-sided slaughter. You're thinking of Wellington, BTW.

That's not a good argument. Napoleons army is inherently superior just based on weapons alone. But we are talking about who is the greatest tactician/strategist in the world, not who had the better weapons. And as for reserves; 75,000 soldiers facing off 1:4 odds, and still wins!

No, based on weapon systems. There are four; heavy calvary, light calvary, heavy infantry, and light infantry. Napolean encorporated HC(artillery) LC(his calvary regiments) HI(Grenadiers) and LI(basic soldier). Alexander encorporated HC(chariot), HI(hoplite) and LI(slinger/archer/javelin thrower). Because Napoleon's army used all four and Alexander only used three, Napoleon's army was inherently more flexible.

He did this (very roughly covered by me here) by co-ordinating an anticlockwise spin of his forces during egagement, to negate Darius III's huge size advantage, and managed to crack his enemies center and win the day. This shows that he did more than set his plans and then rush into battle. He rushes into battle when he realises 2 things. That being that it is now the moment to seize the victory or embrase defeat.

And? Caesar defeated an enemy army by wheeling around and cutting off their line of retreat, which won him the day without a battle. His forces were not actually engaged when he gave the orders for this to be executed, they were simply carried out once the battle was joined.

Yes Ceasar did indeed do that. He was after all a politician first and formost. Ceasar also wept at the feet of a statue of Alexander the Great when in Spain, when he realised that at 32 Alexander had conquered most of the known world, and he at 40 had done nothing.

I've never heard of that. Regardless, that does not make Alexander a better general than Caesar; in fact, any engagement between a Roman legion and an Alexandrian phalanx would almost always result in a Roman victory.

And, Caesar conquered parts of North Africa, I believe, Gaul, and won over Eygpt to Rome. That is hardly 'nothing'.

[Crown]

But Napolean was not easily defeated. Waterloo was a bloody, massive battle, not a one-sided slaughter. You're thinking of Wellington, BTW.

Never said it wasn't bloody, sorry if I implied it, but the fact remains that Wellington (thanks for the name by the way) used a Napoleon tactic against him.

No, based on weapon systems. There are four; heavy calvary, light calvary, heavy infantry, and light infantry. Napolean encorporated HC(artillery) LC(his calvary regiments) HI(Grenadiers) and LI(basic soldier). Alexander encorporated HC(chariot), HI(hoplite) and LI(slinger/archer/javelin thrower). Because Napoleon's army used all four and Alexander only used three, Napoleon's army was inherently more flexible.

Thought you meant something beyond weapon advancement. Darius III armies had all four of the systems, Chariots, Calvary, Infantry, Artilery and got his ass handed to him twice by Alexander. And I am sorry, maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't believe Alexander employed chariots, that was Darius III. And it wasn't a hoptile either, it was the phalanx there is a difference.

And? Caesar defeated an enemy army by wheeling around and cutting off their line of retreat, which won him the day without a battle. His forces were not actually engaged when he gave the orders for this to be executed, they were simply carried out once the battle was joined.

And? And you seem to be propergating the assumption that Alexander A) gave his command general orders on what to do before the battle started and then B) jumped right in the thick of things and then prayed for the best. That's not it at all. Yes he did that at Issus, but not at Gaugamela. That battle required 3 distinct phases for victory, these phases, if as you suggest planned them from the start, then he must be omnipotent or something. I just don't understand why you would be giving him flack for ensuring victory by boosting the morale of his troops by being in the front lines with them at the height of battle when they are outnumbered 5:1. As you said Ceasar himself realises that at some time it's required.

The point when describing Alexander, is that the odds were so against him that it was necessary for him to command all the loyalty of his troops to ensure they do not break!

I've never heard of that. Regardless, that does not make Alexander a better general than Caesar; in fact, any engagement between a Roman legion and an Alexandrian phalanx would almost always result in a Roman victory.

Caesar was nothing to Alexander! The 'phalanxes' that the Roman legions faced, were not in any way shape or form the phalanxes of Alexander. Alexander's phalanx was a squad of men eight shields deep, with spears about 8 - 9 foot ( 2.4 to 2.7m) long. The phalanxes that faced off against the Romans had become a joke (20 or more feet {6m} in length), an armchair tacticians wet dream. While they seemed impressive, against the legion's short sword and flexability it didn't stand a chance. The later Hellenistic Generals failed to adapt to the changing face of warfare, a technique that Alexander (and more importantly his father Philip) had down pat.

And, Caesar conquered parts of North Africa, I believe, Gaul, and won over Eygpt to Rome. That is hardly 'nothing'.

Compared to conquering and enemy that was at least five times larger than you. Richer, stronger and more capable of throwing warriors at you. Different story.

[HemlockGrey]

Never said it wasn't bloody, sorry if I implied it, but the fact remains that Wellington (thanks for the name by the way) used a Napoleon tactic against him.

Right, but it didn't utterly slaughter him; Napoleon's forces still went down shooting.

Thought you meant something beyond weapon advancement. Darius III armies had all four of the systems, Chariots, Calvary, Infantry, Artilery and got his ass handed to him twice by Alexander. And I am sorry, maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't believe Alexander employed chariots, that was Darius III. And it wasn't a hoptile either, it was the phalanx there is a difference.

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.

And? And you seem to be propergating the assumption that Alexander A) gave his command general orders on what to do before the battle started and then B) jumped right in the thick of things and then prayed for the best. That's not it at all. Yes he did that at Issus, but not at Gaugamela. That battle required 3 distinct phases for victory, these phases, if as you suggest planned them from the start, then he must be omnipotent or something. I just don't understand why you would be giving him flack for ensuring victory by boosting the morale of his troops by being in the front lines with them at the height of battle when they are outnumbered 5:1. As you said Ceasar himself realises that at some time it's required.

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.

The 'phalanxes' that the Roman legions faced, were not in any way shape or form the phalanxes of Alexander. Alexander's phalanx was a squad of men eight shields deep, with spears about 8 - 9 foot ( 2.4 to 2.7m) long. The phalanxes that faced off against the Romans had become a joke (20 or more feet {6m} in length), an armchair tacticians wet dream. While they seemed impressive, against the legion's short sword and flexability it didn't stand a chance. The later Hellenistic Generals failed to adapt to the changing face of warfare, a technique that Alexander (and more importantly his father Philip) had down pat.

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.

Compared to conquering and enemy that was at least five times larger than you. Richer, stronger and more capable of throwing warriors at you. Different story.

So? It is still far from 'nothing'

[NecronLord]

Umm... I fail to understand what's so amazingly horrible about Yoda committing clone troopers to die to save Jedi. How is that any different, than, say, protective security details crouding around their charge in order to block bullets with their body?

A TL shot would have achieveed the objectives and prevented the war.