Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Great Military Tactics

ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:08:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I love studying military tactics. I have studied every general from Alexander to Harry Truman, but I wanted to run a quick analysis on each one. Tell me if you disagree with any of the summaries I listed.

Alexander Hamilton: His main tactics were usually involved in sieges, but his land battles weren't exactly the greatest use of tactics, but he is certainly quite famed for his rotating phalanx. His attacks were often quite reckless, like his meet up with the main Persian army. I believe 40,000 troops came to face with over 300,000 Persians, and instead of retreating like Darius expected Alexander of doing, Alexander pretty much just played chicken with Darius, and the whole army flees. Alexander didn't really win his battles do to superior tactics, but new formations and infantry designs that gave him an Advantage over the Archimedes.

Hannibal Barca: His approach to war was a stroke of genius. Hannibal was most famous for his spearhead formations, whereas Rome would approach its enemies in a huge line of heavy and elite infantry, Hannibal's troops would stay connected, about a dozen paces back. Once the heavy infantry hit the first line, they would disconnect, where the second of Hannibal's line would move up and hit the flanks, so on and so on. After all the troops were disconnected, he would circle around the infantry with his Calvary, and push into Romes Peltasts and Archers, creating a huge circle of death, allowing unskilled soldiers to kill 10'000's of armored veterans. Hannibal's downfall was perhaps overplayed, which is why he lost at Zama.

Scipio Cornelius Africanus: Scipio, the guy who beat Hannibal at Zama. Considered one of the best generals of all time, for the sole purpose of beating one of the generals of all time, Hannibal Barca. I can't judge a lot besides Zama, as that's the only battle I really know him by (The surge of Carthage was considered more impressive by many). Hannibal had a huge line of elephants, that were prepared to crush into Scipio's heavy infantry, where his infantry could move up and slaughter his confused and divided troops. Hannibal's downfall was not giving Scipio equal intelligence. Scipio has his Calvary run up to the war elephants, lead them behind enemy lines, and massacred them. Romes heavy troops advanced into Hannibal's line, where Scipio had his Calvary hit Carthage from behind.

Napoleon Bonaparte: People who discredit Napoleon really get on my nerves. He stated several times he got his influence from Hannibal, and he displayed it in battle. The European powers were still using the conventional "line up" and meet the opponent tactic. Napoleon invented the feigned rout. He would leave his veterans in the front lines, charge his Dragoons at the enemy, and feign back unto a ambush location of his choosing. It was highly effective, and a perfect splice of both Scipio's feign routs and Hannibal's controlled ambush techniques.

Genghis Khan: Not really much of a tactician, but his approach to siege based combat was incredible. Such as at Badger Mouth. Genghis pretty much invented total war. He developed a professional army with professional formations. The horse archers would shoot at soldiers, where they would charge. The horses would draw back, and mongols sweep in to kill the soldiers from the side. While patrols would incite terror around the enemy. It was hard to fight what you couldn't catch.

Tran Hung Dao: The one who defeated the mongols three times. His tactics were quite extraordinary, and he is a king of evasion. The Yuan had to move troops through the sea, or the jungle. But there Calvary negated any terrain effects. Luckily, Tran also built an army around Calvary. In the Second Mongol Invasion, Dao knew the mongols couldn't survive on the land, so they led the Mongols down a endless trek of death, while their supplies whittled down to nothing. By setting set trails for the Mongols, he was able to establish traps as well. Destroying anything in its path and setting up ambushes and raids for the Mongols.

That's enough for now. If you have anymore, or just want to discuss ancient or modern tactics, then feel free to start up a discussion
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 12:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Scipio learned much, if not most of his strategy from Hannibal. And Hannibal would most likely have won the Punic Wars had he decided to capture Rome after winning the battle of Cannae.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 12:06:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 12:04:06 PM, STALIN wrote:
Scipio learned much, if not most of his strategy from Hannibal. And Hannibal would most likely have won the Punic Wars had he decided to capture Rome after winning the battle of Cannae.
I agree, but it is hard to imagine Hannibal holding rome. He stated himself, the goal of his campaign wasn't to control Rome, but to install a new government, so you may be right.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
XLAV
Posts: 13,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:48:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 12:06:08 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:04:06 PM, STALIN wrote:
Scipio learned much, if not most of his strategy from Hannibal. And Hannibal would most likely have won the Punic Wars had he decided to capture Rome after winning the battle of Cannae.
I agree, but it is hard to imagine Hannibal holding rome. He stated himself, the goal of his campaign wasn't to control Rome, but to install a new government, so you may be right.
I disagree. Hannibal will still probably lose the Punic Wars if he had tried to capture Rome. The Romans have ample time to recruit more soldiers and could hire mercenaries to fight with them. Not to mention the militias the Romans can rally and the Roman allies that could help them.

Hannibal siege capability was medieocre. He was decent enough to capture some towns, but it wasn't enough to capture Rome.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:20:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 8:48:24 AM, XLAV wrote:
I disagree. Hannibal will still probably lose the Punic Wars if he had tried to capture Rome. The Romans have ample time to recruit more soldiers and could hire mercenaries to fight with them.
From where? They weren't coming in from Syracuse anymore. I amply stated somewhere else in the forums, that if Hasdrubal wasn't defeated in the South, Hannibal could of suceeded in his three flank war. His brothers lost their battles.
Not to mention the militias the Romans can rally and the Roman allies that could help them.
Most of the militias fleeded, and many joined Carthage as mercs

Hannibal siege capability was medieocre. He was decent enough to capture some towns, but it wasn't enough to capture Rome.
We know hardly anything sabot Hannibals siege abilities. He attacked from the north, IE, large undefended towns.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:29:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 12:06:08 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:04:06 PM, STALIN wrote:
Scipio learned much, if not most of his strategy from Hannibal. And Hannibal would most likely have won the Punic Wars had he decided to capture Rome after winning the battle of Cannae.
I agree, but it is hard to imagine Hannibal holding rome. He stated himself, the goal of his campaign wasn't to control Rome, but to install a new government, so you may be right.

Hannibal wasn't march to Rome because he wouldn't want to, he simply couldn't. He doesn't have proper siege engine to assault the Roman fortification nor does he has enough time to even besiege Rome.

In the end the second Punic War was lost, like all war that's lost, because of its strategy. General only win you the battle at best, you need a true strategist to win the war.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:32:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 10:29:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:06:08 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:04:06 PM, STALIN wrote:
Scipio learned much, if not most of his strategy from Hannibal. And Hannibal would most likely have won the Punic Wars had he decided to capture Rome after winning the battle of Cannae.
I agree, but it is hard to imagine Hannibal holding rome. He stated himself, the goal of his campaign wasn't to control Rome, but to install a new government, so you may be right.

Hannibal wasn't march to Rome because he wouldn't want to, he simply couldn't. He doesn't have proper siege engine to assault the Roman fortification nor does he has enough time to even besiege Rome.
He was waiting for Hadrubal and Mago to reach Roma. It was supposed to be a three way attack. Hadrubal from Naples, Mago off the coast, and Hannibal from the north. The combined armies could of captured Rome easily. Hannibal was the only one of the three brothers to actually make it to Roma.

In the end the second Punic War was lost, like all war that's lost, because of its strategy. General only win you the battle at best, you need a true strategist to win the war.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 3:31:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:08:29 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I love studying military tactics. I have studied every general from Alexander to Harry Truman, but I wanted to run a quick analysis on each one. Tell me if you disagree with any of the summaries I listed.

Alexander Hamilton: His main tactics were usually involved in sieges, but his land battles weren't exactly the greatest use of tactics, but he is certainly quite famed for his rotating phalanx. His attacks were often quite reckless, like his meet up with the main Persian army. I believe 40,000 troops came to face with over 300,000 Persians, and instead of retreating like Darius expected Alexander of doing, Alexander pretty much just played chicken with Darius, and the whole army flees. Alexander didn't really win his battles do to superior tactics, but new formations and infantry designs that gave him an Advantage over the Archimedes.

You mean "Alexander the Great". Alexander Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 3:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 3:31:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:08:29 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I love studying military tactics. I have studied every general from Alexander to Harry Truman, but I wanted to run a quick analysis on each one. Tell me if you disagree with any of the summaries I listed.

Alexander Hamilton: His main tactics were usually involved in sieges, but his land battles weren't exactly the greatest use of tactics, but he is certainly quite famed for his rotating phalanx. His attacks were often quite reckless, like his meet up with the main Persian army. I believe 40,000 troops came to face with over 300,000 Persians, and instead of retreating like Darius expected Alexander of doing, Alexander pretty much just played chicken with Darius, and the whole army flees. Alexander didn't really win his battles do to superior tactics, but new formations and infantry designs that gave him an Advantage over the Archimedes.

You mean "Alexander the Great". Alexander Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington.
LOL, Idiotic slip. No, I didn't mean Alexander Hamilton, although he was a master of economic policy.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:08:29 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I love studying military tactics. I have studied every general from Alexander to Harry Truman, but I wanted to run a quick analysis on each one. Tell me if you disagree with any of the summaries I listed.

Alexander Hamilton: His main tactics were usually involved in sieges, but his land battles weren't exactly the greatest use of tactics, but he is certainly quite famed for his rotating phalanx. His attacks were often quite reckless, like his meet up with the main Persian army. I believe 40,000 troops came to face with over 300,000 Persians, and instead of retreating like Darius expected Alexander of doing, Alexander pretty much just played chicken with Darius, and the whole army flees. Alexander didn't really win his battles do to superior tactics, but new formations and infantry designs that gave him an Advantage over the Archimedes.

Hannibal Barca: His approach to war was a stroke of genius. Hannibal was most famous for his spearhead formations, whereas Rome would approach its enemies in a huge line of heavy and elite infantry, Hannibal's troops would stay connected, about a dozen paces back. Once the heavy infantry hit the first line, they would disconnect, where the second of Hannibal's line would move up and hit the flanks, so on and so on. After all the troops were disconnected, he would circle around the infantry with his Calvary, and push into Romes Peltasts and Archers, creating a huge circle of death, allowing unskilled soldiers to kill 10'000's of armored veterans. Hannibal's downfall was perhaps overplayed, which is why he lost at Zama.

Scipio Cornelius Africanus: Scipio, the guy who beat Hannibal at Zama. Considered one of the best generals of all time, for the sole purpose of beating one of the generals of all time, Hannibal Barca. I can't judge a lot besides Zama, as that's the only battle I really know him by (The surge of Carthage was considered more impressive by many). Hannibal had a huge line of elephants, that were prepared to crush into Scipio's heavy infantry, where his infantry could move up and slaughter his confused and divided troops. Hannibal's downfall was not giving Scipio equal intelligence. Scipio has his Calvary run up to the war elephants, lead them behind enemy lines, and massacred them. Romes heavy troops advanced into Hannibal's line, where Scipio had his Calvary hit Carthage from behind.

Napoleon Bonaparte: People who discredit Napoleon really get on my nerves. He stated several times he got his influence from Hannibal, and he displayed it in battle. The European powers were still using the conventional "line up" and meet the opponent tactic. Napoleon invented the feigned rout. He would leave his veterans in the front lines, charge his Dragoons at the enemy, and feign back unto a ambush location of his choosing. It was highly effective, and a perfect splice of both Scipio's feign routs and Hannibal's controlled ambush techniques.

Genghis Khan: Not really much of a tactician, but his approach to siege based combat was incredible. Such as at Badger Mouth. Genghis pretty much invented total war. He developed a professional army with professional formations. The horse archers would shoot at soldiers, where they would charge. The horses would draw back, and mongols sweep in to kill the soldiers from the side. While patrols would incite terror around the enemy. It was hard to fight what you couldn't catch.

Tran Hung Dao: The one who defeated the mongols three times. His tactics were quite extraordinary, and he is a king of evasion. The Yuan had to move troops through the sea, or the jungle. But there Calvary negated any terrain effects. Luckily, Tran also built an army around Calvary. In the Second Mongol Invasion, Dao knew the mongols couldn't survive on the land, so they led the Mongols down a endless trek of death, while their supplies whittled down to nothing. By setting set trails for the Mongols, he was able to establish traps as well. Destroying anything in its path and setting up ambushes and raids for the Mongols.

That's enough for now. If you have anymore, or just want to discuss ancient or modern tactics, then feel free to start up a discussion

Alexander Hamilton? Have you been using mind-altering drugs?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 7:00:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 3:54:31 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:08:29 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I love studying military tactics. I have studied every general from Alexander to Harry Truman, but I wanted to run a quick analysis on each one. Tell me if you disagree with any of the summaries I listed.

Alexander the Great: His main tactics were usually involved in sieges, but his land battles weren't exactly the greatest use of tactics, but he is certainly quite famed for his rotating phalanx. His attacks were often quite reckless, like his meet up with the main Persian army. I believe 40,000 troops came to face with over 300,000 Persians, and instead of retreating like Darius expected Alexander of doing, Alexander pretty much just played chicken with Darius, and the whole army flees. Alexander didn't really win his battles do to superior tactics, but new formations and infantry designs that gave him an Advantage over the Archimedes.

Hannibal Barca: His approach to war was a stroke of genius. Hannibal was most famous for his spearhead formations, whereas Rome would approach its enemies in a huge line of heavy and elite infantry, Hannibal's troops would stay connected, about a dozen paces back. Once the heavy infantry hit the first line, they would disconnect, where the second of Hannibal's line would move up and hit the flanks, so on and so on. After all the troops were disconnected, he would circle around the infantry with his Calvary, and push into Romes Peltasts and Archers, creating a huge circle of death, allowing unskilled soldiers to kill 10'000's of armored veterans. Hannibal's downfall was perhaps overplayed, which is why he lost at Zama.

Scipio Cornelius Africanus: Scipio, the guy who beat Hannibal at Zama. Considered one of the best generals of all time, for the sole purpose of beating one of the generals of all time, Hannibal Barca. I can't judge a lot besides Zama, as that's the only battle I really know him by (The surge of Carthage was considered more impressive by many). Hannibal had a huge line of elephants, that were prepared to crush into Scipio's heavy infantry, where his infantry could move up and slaughter his confused and divided troops. Hannibal's downfall was not giving Scipio equal intelligence. Scipio has his Calvary run up to the war elephants, lead them behind enemy lines, and massacred them. Romes heavy troops advanced into Hannibal's line, where Scipio had his Calvary hit Carthage from behind.

Napoleon Bonaparte: People who discredit Napoleon really get on my nerves. He stated several times he got his influence from Hannibal, and he displayed it in battle. The European powers were still using the conventional "line up" and meet the opponent tactic. Napoleon invented the feigned rout. He would leave his veterans in the front lines, charge his Dragoons at the enemy, and feign back unto a ambush location of his choosing. It was highly effective, and a perfect splice of both Scipio's feign routs and Hannibal's controlled ambush techniques.

Genghis Khan: Not really much of a tactician, but his approach to siege based combat was incredible. Such as at Badger Mouth. Genghis pretty much invented total war. He developed a professional army with professional formations. The horse archers would shoot at soldiers, where they would charge. The horses would draw back, and mongols sweep in to kill the soldiers from the side. While patrols would incite terror around the enemy. It was hard to fight what you couldn't catch.

Tran Hung Dao: The one who defeated the mongols three times. His tactics were quite extraordinary, and he is a king of evasion. The Yuan had to move troops through the sea, or the jungle. But there Calvary negated any terrain effects. Luckily, Tran also built an army around Calvary. In the Second Mongol Invasion, Dao knew the mongols couldn't survive on the land, so they led the Mongols down a endless trek of death, while their supplies whittled down to nothing. By setting set trails for the Mongols, he was able to establish traps as well. Destroying anything in its path and setting up ambushes and raids for the Mongols.

That's enough for now. If you have anymore, or just want to discuss ancient or modern tactics, then feel free to start up a discussion

Alexander Hamilton? Have you been using mind-altering drugs?

Forgive him.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 8:52:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I really like the Mongols' Genghis Khan. The Mongols were only defeated ONCE! ONCE!!
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
Mrkelly
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 9:01:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Vlad did pretty good against the Ottomans, though he was usually out numbered by quite a bit. His battles make interesting reading. He was a brutal man during a brutal time.