Tactics Armies. Generals or different eras.

[kenny]

I have a vast Interest In military History and wonder the secret of success and deafeat.We have Alexander Totally Succesful. Then We Move On. Hannibal Barca Smashed 800000 Roman Soldiers at Canea. Years Later we Have the Same Commander soudly Beaten at Zama By Scipio.We see Roman Cohorts been slaughtered By Spartacus Gladiators.Crassus been soundly Thrashed and decapitated at Parthea. Boudica with Over 150000 Britons been cut to peices By 20 thousand Romans Behind Shields in the wedge of A saw blade formationd.What has been the ingredient with battle vistories Is It training, Discipline.Commited soldiers the leader what? did Alexander have the whole package he must have?Kenny

[jan]

Discipline! Discipline! Discipline!

[jan]

Discipline! Discipline! Discipline!

[kenny]

janhannibal had discipline at Zama and a certain genius and still was Crushed.Spatrans Supreme training and Discipline Yet The Theban Band walked over them.Kenny

[kenny]

janhannibal had discipline at Zama and a certain genius and still was Crushed.Spatrans Supreme training and Discipline Yet The Theban Band walked over them.Kenny

[Athanasios]

Discipline AND a competitive advantage, weather it be formation, strength of cavalry, superior weaponry [or utilisation of].Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Discipline AND a competitive advantage, weather it be formation, strength of cavalry, superior weaponry [or utilisation of].Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

for weather, read 'whether'...Now where IS that coffee?!

[Athanasios]

for weather, read 'whether'...Now where IS that coffee?!

[jan]

Touche! I did see a mockup battle between Philip's Macedonians and some band of the Roman Legions, trying to prove which was better so far as weapons and tactics. The Romans won that battle too, but it was an imaginary one. The long sarissa's often proved to be a liability against shorter and more easily handled spears, as well as the ability to turn and twist at will. The Roman's ended up winning mostly do to the more flexible ability that their shorter weapons permitted against the rigid and frozen sarissa's. It was interesting to see.What? Hannibal? There were lots of films on Decisive Battles which was on History Channel that depicted Hannibal and his troops as well. Hannibal hearkens back to my years teaching at GHS as he was a bit of a joke between two of my top students. Hannibal crossing the Alps!But discipline is at the heart of everything...weight loss, addiction prevention, success in any endeavor requires will, desire, and strength of purpose. But in Alexander's case, his troops were well drilled and maintained their discipline even in just their marches. However, it always the Romans who appear to have the most perfect lines and movement in their long marches. It brings about a sense of oneness. The best author in describing that kind of teamwork is Steven Pressfield in his Gates of Fire. I am very impressed with his description of the Spartan line.

[jan]

Touche! I did see a mockup battle between Philip's Macedonians and some band of the Roman Legions, trying to prove which was better so far as weapons and tactics. The Romans won that battle too, but it was an imaginary one. The long sarissa's often proved to be a liability against shorter and more easily handled spears, as well as the ability to turn and twist at will. The Roman's ended up winning mostly do to the more flexible ability that their shorter weapons permitted against the rigid and frozen sarissa's. It was interesting to see.What? Hannibal? There were lots of films on Decisive Battles which was on History Channel that depicted Hannibal and his troops as well. Hannibal hearkens back to my years teaching at GHS as he was a bit of a joke between two of my top students. Hannibal crossing the Alps!But discipline is at the heart of everything...weight loss, addiction prevention, success in any endeavor requires will, desire, and strength of purpose. But in Alexander's case, his troops were well drilled and maintained their discipline even in just their marches. However, it always the Romans who appear to have the most perfect lines and movement in their long marches. It brings about a sense of oneness. The best author in describing that kind of teamwork is Steven Pressfield in his Gates of Fire. I am very impressed with his description of the Spartan line.

[kenny]

Jan hailI see all the drill and cohesion with Romans. But the histories are littered with coheted Roman Legions.Hannibal was no joke. He boxed in and anhialated 80000 Roman legionaries. In most decisive battles it was a case of the discipline and quite a lot to do with the generalship and innovation and the adaptability of its commander.Most of hannibals Losers were inept useless commanders. Scipio Africanus was a young lad at canae and what he did was learn and adapt tactics to his benefit to take him out.I guess a lot of medeocre and even Great commanders like Hannibal stick with the same ways and eventually get fathomed out.Alexander was indeed unique. He started with the recipe of Philips. And through situations terrain and types of enemy he improvised and adapted to suite.Initialy it was open battlefield tactics. Granicus Issus and gaugamella. Then He modified to smaller faster hit and run blitz crieg against the Hit and run and ambush tactisc very succesfully used by Spitamenes. The case of the Ambushed macedonian column.Alexander himself made all the difference in each individual scenario.The hydaspes ruse tactics. Many Historians claim that to be his most difficult but as far as i am concerned as soon As Aleaxander was across the river and Craterus was behind Porus it was game set and match as soon as Alexander worked out how to nullify the Elephents. All the way through we see development and improvisation. Which in my opinion stands Alexander as the Greatest commander ever.It wasnt to do with luck Alexander made and created his own luck.Indeed were Alexander to have crushed The Romans at Canea as Hannibal he wouldnt have given the Romans chance to regroup he would have been on Rome withing weeks.Kenny

[kenny]

Jan hailI see all the drill and cohesion with Romans. But the histories are littered with coheted Roman Legions.Hannibal was no joke. He boxed in and anhialated 80000 Roman legionaries. In most decisive battles it was a case of the discipline and quite a lot to do with the generalship and innovation and the adaptability of its commander.Most of hannibals Losers were inept useless commanders. Scipio Africanus was a young lad at canae and what he did was learn and adapt tactics to his benefit to take him out.I guess a lot of medeocre and even Great commanders like Hannibal stick with the same ways and eventually get fathomed out.Alexander was indeed unique. He started with the recipe of Philips. And through situations terrain and types of enemy he improvised and adapted to suite.Initialy it was open battlefield tactics. Granicus Issus and gaugamella. Then He modified to smaller faster hit and run blitz crieg against the Hit and run and ambush tactisc very succesfully used by Spitamenes. The case of the Ambushed macedonian column.Alexander himself made all the difference in each individual scenario.The hydaspes ruse tactics. Many Historians claim that to be his most difficult but as far as i am concerned as soon As Aleaxander was across the river and Craterus was behind Porus it was game set and match as soon as Alexander worked out how to nullify the Elephents. All the way through we see development and improvisation. Which in my opinion stands Alexander as the Greatest commander ever.It wasnt to do with luck Alexander made and created his own luck.Indeed were Alexander to have crushed The Romans at Canea as Hannibal he wouldnt have given the Romans chance to regroup he would have been on Rome withing weeks.Kenny

[jan]

Kenny, I believe on the National Geographic dvd, it is Partha Bose who compares Alexander's efforts at the Hydapses with Washington's crossing the Delaware. That caught my attention too. I believe that the Hindu Kush and Valley Forge can be offered in comparisons and contrasts too.There are many ways of looking at things. All soldiers suffer things in common, and usually, the standard rule of thumb is just to say that history repeats itself. It appears that it does. But as you say, Alexander inherited his father's skills and talents as well as his already prepared and trained army; whereas, the feats of Washington against you the British are much more awesome in that he had no such inheritance, and no such disciplined army, no such well trained men. All he had was ragtag farmers, countrymen, and a few soldiers from when he had served for the British king, and that was it. Don't forget that the American Revolution is about British subjects versus British subjects. George Washington had been a soldier in the King's Army before he asserted his independence!

[jan]

Kenny, I believe on the National Geographic dvd, it is Partha Bose who compares Alexander's efforts at the Hydapses with Washington's crossing the Delaware. That caught my attention too. I believe that the Hindu Kush and Valley Forge can be offered in comparisons and contrasts too.There are many ways of looking at things. All soldiers suffer things in common, and usually, the standard rule of thumb is just to say that history repeats itself. It appears that it does. But as you say, Alexander inherited his father's skills and talents as well as his already prepared and trained army; whereas, the feats of Washington against you the British are much more awesome in that he had no such inheritance, and no such disciplined army, no such well trained men. All he had was ragtag farmers, countrymen, and a few soldiers from when he had served for the British king, and that was it. Don't forget that the American Revolution is about British subjects versus British subjects. George Washington had been a soldier in the King's Army before he asserted his independence!