View Full Version : Historic Dispays of Tactical Ingenuity
Battles:
1) Hannibal, Cannae, 218 b.c. The first and most decisive "double envelopment" manuever; subsequently attempted so many times, but never with the same results.
2) Alexander, Gaugamela (Arbela), 331 b.c. Just about every battle Alexander fought was a display of brilliant leadership and tactics; but Gaugamela stands out for Alexander's ability to adjust and fine tune his battle plans to achieve maximum effect.
3) Napoleon, Austerlitz, 1805. A masterpiece of deception, concentration of force, deployment, and timing. As with so many of his battles, special mention for Davout, the ultimate subordinate commander.
4) Frederick, Leuthen, 1757. The best of Frederick's "oblique order" of attack, using terrain to mask his movement until the decisive onslaught.
5) Lee/Jackson, Chancellorsville, 1863. Hooker's sudden "paralysis of command" notwithstanding, one of history's most desperately daring and successful flanking operations.
And among the honorable mentions: Saladin, Hattin, 1187; Prince Eugene, Zenta, 1697; and Marlborough/Eugene, Blenheim, 1704. Battle of Cowpens, 1781
Red Harvest
12-27-2004, 07:14
While I have great respect for Hannibal, it might be better to call Cannae one of the earliest best known and decisive double envelopments. Hannibal used the same basic technique earlier at Trebia--although in that instance about 1/3rd or 1/4th of the Roman army escaped by busting through the weak Carthaginian center.
One of my personal favorite displays of generalship is CSA Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest's Battle of Brices Crossroads. A masterpiece of foresight where mud and terrain were prime considerations in his planning as his small force aggressively advanced to a key position then rolled up a much large union force as it attempted to rush to the point of action and form up.
King_Etzel
12-27-2004, 16:45
for 3) you might want to add that massive amounts of stupidity on the part of various Allied commanders both at the battle and in the battles leading up to Austerlitz. Austerlitz should not be looked on as a just a single brilliant battle (though it is), but rather the climatic finale of masterfully executed strategic maneuvers. Quite a bit of luck too. Napoleon couldnt have counted on his opponents being as dumb as they were. Never ever make a plan that counts on the enemy making a mistake.
Hasdrubal giscon
12-28-2004, 20:55
Hannibal,canne,216bc and not 218
218:battles of tessin and river trebia
217:lake trasimene
216:canne
in this battle hannibal lost 6000 mens in their majority gallic merceneries
the romans lost perhaps 60 000 or 70 000 mens ,80 senateurs and 3 consuls( paul emile ,minicius and geminus.
austerlitz is a so great victory only because the young age of bauth russian and austrian emperor but the old koutouzov have well seeing napoleon s plan
(sorry for my english it is not that good(
Hannibal,canne,216bc and not 218
218:battles of tessin and river trebia
217:lake trasimene
216:canne
in this battle hannibal lost 6000 mens in their majority gallic merceneries
the romans lost perhaps 60 000 or 70 000 mens ,80 senateurs and 3 consuls( paul emile ,minicius and geminus.
austerlitz is a so great victory only because the young age of bauth russian and austrian emperor but the old koutouzov have well seeing napoleon s plan
(sorry for my english it is not that good(
Rome did have 70,000 men on the battlefield but 20,000 managed to escape. This might have been the reason why Hannibal still could'nt march on Rome as Rome might have still been to strong to be assaulted. I do'nt know who returned to Rome but I'm pretty sure agood portion of there cavalry made it back.
Sir Chauncy
01-01-2005, 11:05
To be fair I always thought that Crecy was a bloody good tactically fought battle, but again it really did rely on fighting an army that while technically better was commanded by morons. In terms of tactical genius, you can't really beat sitting on a hill in a prepared position with fully rested troops. I love the descriptions of that battle.
The Battle of Pharsalus, 48 BC.
The Battle of Pharsalus displays the ingenuity of Gaius Julius Caesar in the aspect that he was not obsessed with any kind of 'traditional' or 'customary' tactics at all. His every decision was a direct result of analyzing intelligence reports to the full, as well as psychological analysis on the general who led the opposition. He is known to have said, "You cannot win battles by following manuals", and the Battle of Pharsalus is a prime example of unchained and creative tactical ingenuity.
The Romans learned their lessons of the classic battle tactic (which comprised of two major phases; "encirclement", and subsequent "annihilation".. or latter described as "the Hammer and the Anvil") from Hannibal himself, during the years of the 2nd Punic War.
While it is true that every battle is a contest between two armies trying to accomplish encirclement against each other, it was Hannibal who first taught the Romans about using cavalry forces to its full mobility to accomplish the goal. Before the "Hannibal Shock", Roman tactics largely relied the power of the superior heavy infantry, which was quickly proving to be one of the, if not the most powerful infantry in the Mediterraneans.
The favored tactics of the Romans prior to Hannibal, was to push through enemy lines in an all-out frontal attack, showing full confidence in their infantry. It was not until more than a decade later, when Scipio Africanus fully understood what Hannibal was about, and started using Hannibal's tactics as his own, did Hannibal meet a true defeat on a battlefield on the plains of Zama Reggia.
By 1st century BC, the Romans were now fully accustomed to such cavalry tactics. Pompey arrived at Pharsalus with over 45,000 men and 7,000 cavalry. Caesar’s forces were estimated 22,000 troops and 1,000 cavalry. It is recorded by the historians that Pompey's army was so sure of victory, that the night before the battle the generals started debating over which senate offices goes to whom, and how they will deal with Caesar and his supporters when they get back to Rome.
Caesar's cavalry were outnumbered 7 to 1, and the classic and most reliable battle tactic up to that date was not an option for him. It was almost certain that Pompey's army would use the classic cavalry tactics of encirclement, as basically there was no reason for Pompey to refrain from that.
His infantry outnumbered Caesar's by 2 to 1. His cavalry outnumbered Caesar's by 7 to 1. All he needed to do was ensure that the infantry lines hold, until 7,000 cavalrymen crushed Caesar's 1,000 cavalry and achieved full encirclement. Pompey set up a battle formation where the infantry was lined up, and all of his cavalry grouped together at the left wing.
It was clear to Caesar that destroying the enemy cavalry early in the battle phase would become the critical point which would decide whether he would win or lose that day. But he could not do that with cavalry alone. Thus, he withdrew six cohorts, the best of his best veterans, from his rear lines and placed them behind his right wing cavalry which would meet Popeius' left wing cavalry. To the rest of the men, before the battle, Caesar gave out specific orders and objectives. To the six cohorts of veterans, Caesar only briefly described what he was planning. Caesar trusted these veterans as they needed no rehearsals or pre-battle training to get the job done. Their experience and valor would be exactly what it would be needed to support the cavalry, and hold ground against 7,000 enemy cavalry.
At the day of battle, the first phase started when two-thirds of Caesar's infantry started charging towards Pompy's main lines. One third of Caesar's infantry remained as reserves. Pompey's soldiers held their ground, prepared to meet Caesar's when they ran the distance and were out of breath. Seeing this, the individual experience of the soldiers came alive, and they voluntarily stopped the charge, reformed the lines, caught some breath, and then charged again.
Seeing this, Pompey ordered his cavalry to go on to the second phase, and 7,000 cavalry started moving in to the right flank of Caesar's army where 1,000 cavalry were placed, and hidden behind them, six cohorts of veterans equipped with spears. Upon meeting the 7,000 cavalry, Caesar's 1,000 spread apart and revealed the cream of Caesar's elite forces hidden behind them. Pompey's 7.000 were expecting Caesar's 1,000 to rout, and was running at full speed to catch them, when they suddenly realized infantry men were springing up from behind.
Suddenly, Pompey's 7,000 cavalry found themselves encircled and trapped by enemy infantry and cavalry. Their charge was halted, and they no longer were mobile cavalry force, but only stationary targets mounted on horses. Caesar had foreseen that he did not have enough men to encircle Pompey's entire army. So he chose to draw out the enemy's most important tactical asset, isolate, encircle, and annihilate it first.
Pompey's left flank was now empty. Caesar's reserves now charged and joined the battle in the center. Right wing cavalry and infantry men, who routed Pompey's 7,000, now crept up the empty flank and encircled Pompey's infantry lines from their left. Like domino pieces, Pompey's lines crumbled from left to right, and Pompey gave up command and retreated to his camp, leaving the infantry to their fate. Demoralized and shocked, the remaining infantry surrended.
...
Some people have said,
"All of the great generals of old, Alexander, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus, would probably be able to hold office in West Point, and teach cadets about battle and military tactics. Julius Caesar, on the other hand, would probably comment, 'Show me the battlefield and my soldiers first, and then I will teach you how to win. I cannot teach how to win in a classroom' "
-fin-
Kaiser of Arabia
01-02-2005, 04:46
Borodino was NOT one of them. Bloodiest mistake of Napoleons history.
Never ever make a plan that counts on the enemy making a mistake.
But that just how most great victories are won...brilliance on one side combined with stupidity and miscalculations on the other.
The generals in history I admire most are Hannibal and Alexander the Great. Hannibal has already been mentioned, but Alexander hasn't and I think it a shame that this great leader and conquerer is forgotten.
The reason I admire Alexander is because he not only won battles which were stacked hugely against him, he also fought successfully against a many different armies that relied on different tactics, unlike for example Hannibal, who fought only against the Roman steamroller tactic. I am not saying that Hannibal was unable to deal with a different tactical situation (his defeat at Zama was caused by a lot of factors, not only because his opponent used Hannibal's own tactics against him), but Alexander did defeat Greeks, Persians, Scyths and Indians every time he took the field against them, not to mention his success against the hill tribes surrounding Macedon. These four enemies all fought a different kind of battle, yet Alexander won his battles against them on his first try. He wasn't just a fast learner, he didn't need to learn: he could work out how his enemy was going to fight and made his own plan taking that into account.
So I think Ptah's quotation could be applied to Alexander just as well as to Ceasar. Alexander didn't have a set tactic to use against every opponent. He went into battle saying, "I'll think of something." And, he did. That's why he is "the Great".
The generals in history I admire most are Hannibal and Alexander the Great. Hannibal has already been mentioned, but Alexander hasn't and I think it a shame that this great leader and conquerer is forgotten.
The reason I admire Alexander is because he not only won battles which were stacked hugely against him, he also fought successfully against a many different armies that relied on different tactics, unlike for example Hannibal, who fought only against the Roman steamroller tactic. I am not saying that Hannibal was unable to deal with a different tactical situation (his defeat at Zama was caused by a lot of factors, not only because his opponent used Hannibal's own tactics against him), but Alexander did defeat Greeks, Persians, Scyths and Indians every time he took the field against them, not to mention his success against the hill tribes surrounding Macedon. These four enemies all fought a different kind of battle, yet Alexander won his battles against them on his first try. He wasn't just a fast learner, he didn't need to learn: he could work out how his enemy was going to fight and made his own plan taking that into account.
There are similarities between the strategies of Hanibal and Alexander however the differences are two many to name. The refusal of his center against the Roman line causing them to crowd in and be surrounded was a first in history. There are others but one more factor to take into consideration when considering the qualities of a great general is his opponent. Now I will never say Alexander wasn't brilliant however he wasn't fighting a rocket scientist. Darius was not a top general. At Issus his most skilled troops were Greek Mercanaries. With the exception of a small number of the immortals, most of the Persian troops were third rate. Darius just had a huge number of them compared to Alexanders numbers. It was only a tough fight because of the numbers of troops Alexander had to fight and the "no quarter given, none expected" outlook of the Greek mercs. Alexander never really had an opponent of any skill as a general.
Alexander never really had an opponent of any skill as a general.
Hannibal's victories in Italy weren't against tactical geniuses (genii?) either. The one time he was up against a formidable opponent he lost (again, this doesn't mean he wasn't a great general: he just lost all the assets he normally relied upon when fighting a battle). Also, 'never' is a bit of an exageration. True, he never faced up against another great general, but then, the status of 'great general' is given with hindsight. What Alexander did do was fight a wide variety of enemies, including two whose way of fighting would normally spel doom upon the heavy infantry the Macedonian army relied upon: Scythian horse archers and Indian elephants. He also subdued several mountain tribes (in Macedon and Persia) who didn't do field battles either.
Gaugemela was a thought fight because Darius tried to envelop the Macedonians. Alexander anticipated that and lured away Darius' left flank cavalry. He proceeded to envelop Darius' left flank. However, things were quite hairy at Alexander's left because the Greek cavalry there was not strong enough to stand up against their Persian opponents. The phalanx was threathened and Alexander aborted his pursuit of Darius to save his flank. In the end the Persians routed before he got back to the battlefield, but Parmenion, Alexander's left-flank commander, felt the situation was dangerous enough to call for reinforcements.
And though Darius was incompetent, I think it is a bit far fetched to say all Alexander's opponents were bad.
RedKnight
03-19-2005, 04:26
This is a great thread, folks!
Anybody got any particularly well-loved websites about great battles of tactical ingenuity?
One of the things I love about this Forum, learning interesting bits of history.
Does anyone have a list of recommended books on some of these battles?
DE
Craterus
03-21-2005, 19:11
i like books about Alexander The Great and Hannibal but i haven't read much on the others, i've learnt a bit reading this forum though!
Rodion Romanovich
03-21-2005, 19:57
ANCIENT BATTLES:
My candidate for best fought battle goes to Gaugamela, easily one of the most impressive achievements. The splitting up of the phalanx was IMO the most clever move in the history of ancient warfare.
Marathon was also well fought, if it was really fought as some people today claim it WAS - namely with a weak center and strong flanks. A simple tactic, but extremely efficient.
Cannae was impressive but it was really mostly about the stupid roman leaders who ordered a charge toward the centre of Hannibal's line. Still historical records speak of the center of his line bulging out towards the romans before the battle, and a withdrawal of the middle section when the romans charged. If that's true, it was a brilliant manouver and a really well fought battle.
MEDIEVAL BATTLES:
Agincourt, Crezy and Poitiers - not necessarily extremely tactically well fought but at least an impressive achievement. The enemy's bad decisions gave England the victory.
Hattin 1187 - also that battle was partly caused by the loser's mistakes rather than clever movements from Saladin. Saladin was a great strategical leader though, and that's what he deserves most credit for. The crusaders were tired after the march through the desert and Saladin had light horse archers and other very useful troops for the situation. Even though the crusaders were tired their heavy troops still offered Saladin a challenge and his tactics at Hattin were impressive too.
Stirling bridge - This battle was also partly won due to the loser's mistakes, but William Wallace took full advantage of those mistakes and this battle was a school example of how a bridge crossing battle should be fought.
Hastings 1066 - A simple tactic from William secured victory. His archers kep inflicting casualties for Harold and lured his men to break ranks in attempts to kill the archers. When they did so, they were run over by norman cavalry. The better archery finally made a heads-on charge uphill possible, and Harold had kept his lightest troops on the flanks instead of keeping them in the middle and the heavy troops on the flanks, a method which military history has proved is much more effective.
I can't think of any more right now. Please tell me if you disagree about any of these battles or have sources contradicting mine.
Spartan117300
03-22-2005, 20:51
Here are a few battles that cought my attention, all this is coming from the top of my head so I’ll probably post another one with actual numbers and facts later, sorry for any mistakes
Ancient-
The Hellespont- Another brilliant commander was Thrasybulus; an Athenian navarch who fought alongside Alcibiades during the later days of the Pelleponesian war. He devised and won several crucial victories along the Hellespont and throughout Ionia, In one instance completely routing a force of 190 Spartan triremes who had nearly enveloped the Athenian flanks.
Cunaxa- Even though Cyrus was killed and his rebellion ended, his badly outnumbered troops nonetheless won a great victory, Cyrus’s Persian troops routed or at least held their own against King Artaxerxes. The 10,000 Greek mercenaries however carried the field. They mauled, routed, and persued all who faced them.
Thermopylea- I shouldn’t have to go into any detail about the single greatest stand in military history.
Teutoberg Forest- Like Cannae poor Roman leadership cost the lives of thousands of Roman troops and civilians alike.
Medieval and modern-
Agincourt- The outnumbered English ruined the French army sent to meet them. Through use of feint attacks, skilled archers, and flanking maneuvers. The French lost several princes and many nobles. Crippling their political and military strength.
The Marne, 1918- In the spring of 1918 allied and axis armies exchanged brutal attacks and counterattacks in an attempt to move the lines from the filthy trenches dug years ago. Through allied ingenuity the lines began to cave in as Tanks and infantry were used together to punch holes in the German lines.
Operation Barbarossa, 1941- You cant ignore Hitlers genius as he overann much all of Europe and then all of Eastern Europe in one giant stroke. By dividing his army into three groups each with set goals and each competing with each other.
The Gulf War, 1991- I don’t remember the exact numbers but nearly a million dead and wounded Iraqis to less than 300 coalition casualties….wow.
Mogadishu, Somalia, 1993- I was lucky enough to have known several of the men who fought here….basically an entire city vs the rangers and delta operators of task force delta. The casualties inflicted on Somalis were horrendous while the American stories of heroism and survival were incredible.
Spartan117300
03-22-2005, 20:53
for thermopylea you could read "gates of fire" by steven pressfield, for cunaxa, "the ten thousand" by micheal curtiss ford. some other good ones are "gods and legions" and "Tides of war"
Somebody Else
03-23-2005, 08:03
Salamis...
Didn't Scipio and Hannibal have a conversation about the best general ever... Scipio saying that he would have regarded Hannibal the best ever, had he beaten Scipio. As it was, he left it at Alexander.
Azi Tohak
03-23-2005, 08:52
Humm...tactical... Most of the time I think that would be what we have used, the one battlefield, you can see me and I can see you (well, more or less), now lets smack each other around.
I really rather like the battle of Okehazama (Oda Nobunaga, 1560). Let them get drunk, then jump on them.
Battle of Mohi by Suebedi (yes, I know there are millions of ways to spell it) when he destroyed the strongest army in Europe. Faint to the front, flank them. But leave a gap? Could the Mongols really be so generous? Nope, it was a trap. What a perfect way to destroy the Hungarians.
But how about Erich von Manstein in WWII? First his attack through the Ardennes ripping the westerners apart. Got to love the use of impassable terrain. Tell me again how it was impassable in the winter of 44?
And his counter stroke against the Soviets in the first couple of months of 1943. The Germans had just lost some of their best troops in Stalingrad, and the Soviets were coming like a freight train. Well, great! Too bad they out ran their supports and supplies. Manstein knew it, and positioned what troops he had to take advantage of it. So much for the Soviet momentum! I don't know if any one else could have done that.
Azi
Craterus
03-25-2005, 11:55
Salamis...
Didn't Scipio and Hannibal have a conversation about the best general ever... Scipio saying that he would have regarded Hannibal the best ever, had he beaten Scipio. As it was, he left it at Alexander.
i think scipio asked hannibal "Who were the greatest generals in history?"
and hannibal replied "Alexander, Pyrrhus, Hannibal, in that order"
scipio asked "And if you had won at Zama?"
hannibal replied "I would place myself first."
Rodion Romanovich
03-25-2005, 14:47
Thermopylea- I shouldn’t have to go into any detail about the single greatest stand in military history.
Thermopylae was cool because the spartans were vastly outnumbered, but the tactics were not very impressive - just put a phalanx in a narrow pass and watch a stupid enemy charge it. Hold the pass like that until your men get too fatigued by two days (or whatever it was) of fighting like that. It was an impressive and for the greeks very useful achievement, but there's no tactical genius behind it, only strategical and technological. The choice of holding the pass and the development of the phalanx was the crucial thing. A thing that most people foresee is the importance of the naval battle outside Thermopylae, which ended in a tie and kept the persians from landing a force on the other side of the pass and crush the spartans.
The Marne and Gulf War - same thing there: no tactical skills at all, it was only about technology. The tank determined the outcome of ww1, the anti-anti-aircraft missiles determined the gulf war. The gulf war was a turkey shoot due to technological, not tactical, acheivements. It's basically the same thing as Genghis khan's horse archers and their ability to kill enemies without the enemies being able to kill any of them. If you want an example of great tactics used in a war where Us army was involved, look at the Vietnam war. The vietcong guerilla with shitty equipment defeating the most powerful army in the world is one of the most impressive tactical achievements in the history of warfare.
Barbarossa was not an impressive tactical or strategical achievement either. It was however impressive compared to the otherwise quite primitive and stupid tactics used by european armies at that time. The use of numeral superiority in one place to break through was an old, ancient trick rediscovered after the cruel turkey shoot battles of the colonial era, where the europeans didn't need any tactics because their opponents fought with spears instead of rifles. Soon the allies also started to remember these basic tactics and made accurate judgements of how strong the german spearhead offensives were and then the war became more even. Rommel and Guderian were the only really good German generals in ww2, Montgomery was one of the greatest British generals. The person responsible for sending half the British tank reserve to North Africa during the blitz also deserves a lot of credit because that was one of the most clever moves of the war. The American naval commanders in the Pacific as well as the British naval commanders in the Atlantic and Mediterranean also did well. Pearl harbor was a well-coordinated attack too, but the British were the first to carry out a successful large-scale combined attack against a harbor (against the Italians).
Somebody Else
03-26-2005, 06:15
i think scipio asked hannibal "Who were the greatest generals in history?"
and hannibal replied "Alexander, Pyrrhus, Hannibal, in that order"
scipio asked "And if you had won at Zama?"
hannibal replied "I would place myself first."
Meh, it was a long time ago... memory fades.
Kekvit Irae
03-26-2005, 06:25
Personally, I believe that Hastings and Agincourt were won due to circumstances rather than tactics.
Hastings was a failure for Harold because he faught with the vikings several days previous and his troops were fatigued from battle and a forced march to meet William II. Makes me wonder what would have happened if Harold rested, or, simply put, met with William's army first.
Agincourt was mostly due to French knights being bogged down by the mud, where English longbowmen just slaughtered them. You cannot recover a battle from that kind of a blow.
Rodion Romanovich
03-26-2005, 11:38
Agincourt was mostly due to French knights being bogged down by the mud, where English longbowmen just slaughtered them. You cannot recover a battle from that kind of a blow.
Some new historians are claiming the bows didn't achieve much kills because they couldn't penetrate the french steel armor. The mud alone, and perhaps arrows killing the actual horses, were still important factors though.
Soulforged
08-01-2005, 09:56
It's true that there were favourable circumstances on Agincourt to the Henry's army, but a very good plan always begins from establishing those circumstances while the general can do it. Henry was fleeing from France and he was advised of the intercepting force with enough time to set a plan. So he take this narrow passage, surrounded by trees, and places his outnumbered forces behind a palisade to block frontal attacks. Right from the begining if the french planned to win this battle a mounted frontal attack was always a suicide. Besides the rain that transformed the dirt in mud there was no other circumstance. It was a tactical achievement of one general and a very bad judgement of the other, i think the french were overly proud and they charged without any thought about the tactics or strategies. If they'd have foughted that battle unmounted they probably would have won. And about Hastings, is not so much of circumstance as it's of sugestion, the truth is that if William wouldn't have faked his own death then the battle would probably had another outcome, it was a very good movement of William and again overconfidence of the other party.
Soulforged
08-01-2005, 10:06
For what i can recall all historians put Hannibal as the best strategist ever (perhaps not the best general), and the battle of Cannae as the most precious "piece of art" (if you can call man slaughtering like that) ever. I would like to put one of my country here, San Martín knew that the Spanish forces would be prepared for a frontal attack with their rear protected by the Andes (mountains on Argentina) so he planned this to be a decisive battle. He took all his forces and maked an exceptional crossing trought the chain of mountains and surprised the spanish army from behind, the battle was harsh nontheless but still it was a devastating victory, of course i'm talking of the XIX century here.
Grey_Fox
08-01-2005, 12:49
Wellington's victory at Salamanca. He launched a lightning attack against an enemy army that was momentarily spread out while on the march. Also one of his great quotes: "You see those men over there? Throw your fellows into column and drive them to the devil".
Ianofsmeg16
08-01-2005, 13:55
Some new historians are claiming the bows didn't achieve much kills because they couldn't penetrate the french steel armor. The mud alone, and perhaps arrows killing the actual horses, were still important factors though.
Archers were taught to aim for the horses anyway, it was simply a bigger target
Rodion Romanovich
08-01-2005, 17:24
Yeah, killing the horses in that mud was probably even worse than if they'd been able to penetrate the steel armor. Just imagine heaps and heaps of horse corpses, forcing the knights to zig-zag back and forth through the mud, as if the mud didn't restrict their speed in the charge enough anyway... That's actually one of the things that the TW games really ought to implement - movement and formation penalty when moving over ground littered with corpses...
SpawnOfEbil
08-01-2005, 17:56
The Battle of Leuctra has got to rank up there alongside Gaugamela and Cannae.
Epaminondas was a tactical genius to do what he did and try something completely novel to defeat a much stronger enemy.
Kagemusha
08-01-2005, 19:10
This isnt such a classic,but good example from WWII how a little force can annihilate lot bigger and better equipped one. ~;) Battle of Suomussalmi (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/ba/battle_of_suomussalmi.htm)Look at the casulties,at the right of the site. :bow:
Seamus Fermanagh
08-01-2005, 22:09
One of the longest running disputes in military history -- and history in general.
Limits =
1. chap said generals not admirals, so we'll stick to the dry 40% of things.
2. aim is tactical rather than strategic, which lets out Barbarossa in 1941 (though leaving in a number of the battles within it) and a few others.
3. call is for "ingenuity," implying that orthodox tactics, however well executed, need not apply.
Right then, by era:
Ancient:
Hannibal Barca at Cannae: Though not the only use of the double envelopment, this is his best use of it. The tactic was probably a feature of the "chariot wars" of the VERY ancient middle east but records are very sparse on that. Marathon, too a somewhat lesser extent, employed the same approach.
Gaius Julius Caesar at Pharsalus: As noted in other posts, possible the best ancient use of flexible tactics.
Odysseus at Troy: Wherever Troy really was, and whatever the "horse" really was, this sneaky tactic has been sung and lauded for more than 3 millenia -- not a bad manuever that.
Sun Pin at Ma Ling: Set an ambush for a superior army by writing a note and sticking on a tree in a defile. The note said that "Pang Chuan dies by this tree." Troops found it, message went up the line, and sure enough Pang couldn't resist. Then the bowmen opened up. Dead General, routed army, opposing royalty captured -- game over.
-- Alexander gets zip from me. Any ingenuity to the oblique attack belongs to the Thracians and/or his dad Phillip. Alexander declared one basic tactic for a battle and then plunged into the hack and slash. He was a brilliant motivational/charismatic leader and a heck of a fighter but.....
Medieval:
Sabutai at Mohi: (others have noted) Dividing forces to launch a two-pronged attack across a River! Smashed the Hungarians. Sabutai is considered by many (including MacArthur) to have been the greatest general in history.
Henry at Agincourt: Advancing against a vastly superior foe in order to draw them into an unwise (and unneccessary) attack. The rest of the battle was, as noted before, more of a tribute to stupidity -- only that up-stakes and move out advance was ingenious (and gutsy).
Richard Plantagenet at Arsuf: Fighting on the march against a foe with superior mobility. Richard's forces were able to deal severe blows to those of Saladin, and Saladin was forced to sue for peace. This was wonderful thinking from an leader and army that was more used to the typical Eruopean see them, charge them, stomp them, ransom the nobility approach. Richard was a rotten strategist, a butcher, and a miserable king --but he could fight.
....other era choices to follow ~:)
Archers were taught to aim for the horses anyway, it was simply a bigger target
not specifically true,
archers began training at 7 years old, they were taught to aim for the man,
Practical Experience "taught" them to aim for the horse
the english bodkin arrow head was ineffective against plate above a range of 70 odd yards, and who wants to let plate armoured knights get THAT close if you can kill their horse at 200 yards...
~:cheers:
(and even under 70 yards it had to hit a thin or weak spot - against full front plate - no penetration, the arrow head metal was softer than the armour)
B.
Excellent post and fascinating thread - cheers all.
Ianofsmeg16
08-02-2005, 10:30
not specifically true,
archers began training at 7 years old, they were taught to aim for the man,
Practical Experience "taught" them to aim for the horse
the english bodkin arrow head was ineffective against plate above a range of 70 odd yards, and who wants to let plate armoured knights get THAT close if you can kill their horse at 200 yards...
~:cheers:
(and even under 70 yards it had to hit a thin or weak spot - against full front plate - no penetration, the arrow head metal was softer than the armour)
B.
wow, thanks. ~:cheers:
i only said that because i thought it would be obvious for the commanders at that time to teach new archers that aiming for the horse would technicall immobilise the rider, and seeing how horse riders armour is heavier (i think anyway, i think that infantry more commonly wore chain mail that big heavy plate armour), the rider would be just an incredibly slow infantryman that could be cut down. Am i correct in saying this?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-02-2005, 20:37
Hmmm....
Posts regarding penetration power of arrows.
Middle age long and crossbows couldn't penetrate full plate armors unless they caught a joint or other weakspot. For that matter, most of the top-notch armors were bullet-proof in the torso and head until the development of more powerful muskets (post 1500) made the weight requirements for such proofing prohibitive. Arrows would only rarely pierce a shield with enough remaining kinetic energy to wound the wielder.
Roman era armors were rarely that complete or effective, and relied on leather, studded leather, and chain for the most part. All such armors are difficult to pierce with a bow and arrow, but the more powerful bows (Hun e.g.) could do it. The heavier scale armors were more likely to be arrow proof in practice because of their "plated" characteristics. Shield were almost always proof against arrows, though even a tetsudo formation would not provide perfect cover. Arrows were annoying, but rarely decisive.
As to aiming at a horse or rider, I suspect that most archers aimed at a unit rather than attempting to snipe at the eye-slits of a moving target at 100 yards. The key would be my 400 archers trying to put 1600 to 2400 arrows into your company of 100 heavy cavalry in the 15-20 seconds it took the horsies to close from 250 yards to my "I'm leaving" point. Under such conditions, the comparatively lightly armored horses are gonna get more of a thump than the rider. However, as an archer I really don't care. Anything that stops or slows you is fine by me, because I know if I run I'm giving you a chance to cheap me. I'd much rather discourage you any way I can so that I don't have to risk running OR doing a do-si-do with your many hundreds of pounds of horse, pointy stick, and/or hand weapon. ~:eek:
As to weight and mobility, armor and weapons generally weighed in at less than 100 pounds. I'm sure that this weight and the stiffened joint articulation does limit mobility somewhat, but reenactors wearing such gear are NOT largely immobile when unhorsed. Assuming that they didn't get their bell rung falling, or got pinned, they would be able to continue. The myth about knights being like crippled turtles when unhorsed resulted from the very late period jousting only super-armors, where the weight alone was a tactic to keep you from getting knocked off. The famous imobility of the French knights at Agincourt was a combination of deep mud (wet ground), too many people bunched together and getting in one another's way, and exhaustion brought on by stress. The press was so tight that a number of the French are presumed to have been drowned in mud when their fellows bowled them over and then bunched over them preventing their standing up.
There are some good history channel pieces on these subjects
pezhetairoi
08-03-2005, 06:23
Seamus, once again you amaze. But I'd always thought they had arrows capable of penetration of standard chivalric armour, though.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-03-2005, 14:21
Depends what you mean by "standard" Pez'.
Medieval plate steel was virtually "proof" against an iron bodkin point.
But most "standard" infantry and poorer cavalry couldn't afford such armor, so there were lesser armors that the arrows could get through. Chain, leather, ring, and other variants were vulnerable at closer distances.
Against men-at-arms with plate, most of the arrows just bounced unless they caught the thin chin at an elbow or neck. Helmets had eye slits -- or were even open-faced in many cases, so that could be a source for arrow kills too, unless they had a full on close helm.
RTW era armors were often less complete. Roman era armies were huge, compared to medieval ones, and economics suggest that Rome (and other factions) could not have afforded to armor its troops to medieval levels even if the technology had been developed.
SF
Ja'chyra
08-03-2005, 15:41
About a year ago the BBC done a series of programmes on medieval warfare, I can't remember who the presenter was but some of the UK patrons might.
In the programme he proved many things, longbow arrows would pierce breastplates but not at any great range, a steel sword (War of the Roses style, would not pierce a steel helm but would dent it, most shield were useless after a few hits even if they had metal edging.
I'll try and find more info about the show it was really quite good.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-03-2005, 15:48
Now, on to more tactical ingenuity
[Moderators, please award appropriate brownie points for returning thread to subject :-)]
Pike and Musket Era:
Cromwell at Naseby and Dunbar: Consistently used the "combined arms" of the era in better coordination. He may have been a bas&*#$ (I feel constrained to note this as a fellow of Irish descent), but he was probably the best war-leader or the western world after Belisarius and before Bonaparte.
Tokugawa at Sekigahara: Brilliant use of musketry and terrain to counter superior enemy numbers.
Washington in NY and NJ: Despite losing almost every engagement, Washington extricated his troops from every trap the British laid with sidesteps and misdirection, prevented British forces from siezing control of the Hudson north of West Point, and had the stones to follow months of defeats with multiple counterattacks during the Winter. This flexible tenacity saved the rebellion, slowed the British, and laid the groundwork for Arnold's victory at Saratoga.
Napoleonic Era:
Napoleon's Italian Campaign: Absolutely brilliant display of the use of mobility and concentration of power at the point of decision. Only at Lodi did his tactics fail, but then bridge assaults usually suck for everyone. He took all of northern Italy down through and including Rome with a numerically inferior force and would have been able to crush Austria except for the presence of the Alps.
Wellington at Salamanca and Waterloo: Both actions display his ability to maximize British firepower tactics against numerically superior opponents operating in column.
-- Napoleon was a brilliant tactician and effective jurist (the Code Napoleon STILL works well), but as a strategist he fell short. His Continental System failed to counter British Naval mobility and strength, his Egyptian campaign was doomed from the outset because it could never have truly threatened India et al (and Nelson kicked its legs out from under anyway at Aboukir), his assault on Russia failed to account for Russia's ability to trade space and avoid a single crushing defeat, and he failed to adequately respond to the threat of Spain and the British expeditionary force there.
Early Industrial War:
T.J. Jackson in the Valley campaign. Almost certainly the best display of mobility and terrain to defeat superior forces. Jackson's "foot cavalry" took infantry mobility in the rifle era to a new level.
-- Lee, while an honorable and charismatic leader, did not fare well without Jackson. Antietam, Gettysburg, The Wilderness, and the Peninsula do not show Lee as a tactical genius and savior. Jackson on his own, or executing with/on behalf of Lee, most certainly was.
Von Moltke the Elder v. Austria and France: his perception of the power of tactical defense as an offensive tool combined with his reliance on railroads for TACTICAL as well as strategic mobility were and are brilliant. These same principles were to save Germany at Tannenberg and underly much of the brilliant success of German arms from 1867 through 1944.
The 20th Century:
Von Hutier at Riga and Caporetto: His use of indirect attack to conquer Riga from a numerically superior Russian force combined with the use of infiltration tactics at Riga and Caporetto helped put Russia out of the war and nearly allowed the Central Powers to defeat Italy. Were it not for rapid reinforcement by the Allies, Italy may well have sued for peace, allowing Germany to concentrate ALL of her troops as well as the Best AHE forces against the west in early 1918 (where they nearly won the war as it was!) Von Hutier's tactics were the precursor of modern "blitzkrieg." One of his key assault commanders in Italy, by the way, was Erwin Rommel.
Guderian in France: The master of armored blitzkrieg, Guderian literally ignored orders to slow and consolidate the Meuse bridgehead and went on to sever Allied forces in two through shock. Lesson, NEVER slow the schwerpunkt until lack of supplies forces you to stop. No matter how disorganized your feel, the defender is much worse off. Hitler personally stopped Guderian and Hoth in August of 1941 or Russia would have broken and Europe would be very different today.
Montgomery in France: His great successes later were set-pieces at best, but his delaying action in covering the withdrawal at Dunkirk was brilliant tactical improvisation. Britain may possibly have been forced from the war if they had lost all of their ground forces in the BEF.
Yamashita in Malaysia: Brilliant use of mobility to invalidate repeated defensive efforts by the British defenders. Brit troops often retreated to the next defensive line only to learn that it too had been flanked and they had to keep running. Yamashita then took Singapore almost without a shot -- which was good for him, as he was so far ahead of his supply lines that his troops had only a few days of ammo and food. The British could have held Singapore longer than we held Corregidor and Bataan, buying months for reinforcement into India etc. but Yamashita had already routed them and they folded.
Patton in the Ardennes: Disengaging from a Battle, turning 90 degrees, and fighting a running battle for 100 miles to relieve Bastogne in less than 10 days. Possibly the most amazing display of tactical flexibility during the war. Thank heavens we yanks were innovative and flexible, our tanks sucked.
Giap at Dien Bien Phu: Couldn't take the fortress without artillery, so he got artillery up there -- a feat considered impossible. His forces then defeated the French Legionaires (a class "A" combat unit whatever you think of the rest of the French military) holding the position using classic infiltration and siege tactics.
Haim Bar-lev and Ariel Sharon in Sinai: Israeli forces normally relied on tanks and air power to counter Arab numerical superiority, but Egypt's use of Tow missiles and forward SAM emplacements negated these tools. Bar-Lev and his point man Sharon switched to infantry infiltration on 24 hours notice, punched a hole in the seam between 2 Egyptian armies, and reversed the course of the war in 48 hours.
-- Many other brilliant tactical successes have occurred, including US forces in Iraq (1 & 2), but these are largely duplicative of earlier tactical innovations in desert warfare (Casting no aspersions on Schwartzkoff or Franks). Rommel was a wonderful tactician, but wasn't an innovator. Allenby, Wavell, and Ritchie had all done the same thing prior to him.
pyrocryo
12-06-2005, 12:46
i wonder why there is no china battle included here. I always think unlike other battles where one part of the plan is always bigger than the others, Chinese ancient warfare are always a balanced mix of modern C3I. In fact, it is better if the concept of MIJI was first deployed in war by the Chinese.
The Battle of Red Cliff for example. It is not a single battle won by tactics and strategy. Zhuge Liang actually planned to destroy a vastly superior army not only by killing them, but also by destroying their confidence and will to fight.
Also I recall a Qin general who first to build a cavalry force, designed as shock troops.
Another one is Wan Ben, who use water as a weapon.
Another faction that we should learn about is the Early Islamic Caliphate, especially under Omar ibn Khatabi (did I pronounce his name correct?). I'm still can't imagine how a (relatively) modern nations like Eastern Rome and Persia can quickly fallen against a nation that is not only young, but their experience in warfare are limited to small scale raids and battles.
matteus the inbred
12-06-2005, 13:27
fascinating thread!
obviously you can't include every battle but...
i'd add Napoleon in the 1814 'Vauchamps' campaign...brilliant mobility and timing with troops that were certainly not as good as those he had had in Italy.
Wellington at Assaye 1803, where an incredibly bold flanking move, good 'micromanagement' and trust in his troops' quality won the day. Wellington later considered this his finest battle.
Oda Nobunaga at Okehazama in 1560...boldness, complete tactical surprise and good use of terrain and the elements, a classic 'beheading' strike. also Toyotomi Hideyoshi at Nagashino in 1575 for his understanding of the value of muskets, although i think someone already mentioned this one? as with Henry V at Agincourt, he was greatly helped by his enemies' readiness to attack a prepared position. a really hard 'classic' battle to win in STW, i've always found.
i think the Israeli performance in the Sinai must rank high though, for all round preparedness, flexibility, fighting determination and effective tactical doctrine.
would anyone like to start a thread on the WORST commanders in history? (particularly those who commanded more than a one-off battle)
would anyone like to start a thread on the WORST commanders in history? (particularly those who commanded more than a one-off battle)
Try this Monastery thread: History's biggest boobs (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56197). And no, it's got nothing to do with the babe-thread ~D .
matteus the inbred
12-06-2005, 14:46
ah, thank you Ludens. the boobs were indeed very impressive...
Well perhaps Monty at El Alamein? Hitting the Germans for 6 out of Africa was pretty 'ingenious' in my opinion.
(Interestingly enough you could also nominate him in the biggest boob thread for Op. Market Garden, ignoring intelligence telling him of the nearby German forces and all...)
Hmmm....
As to weight and mobility, armor and weapons generally weighed in at less than 100 pounds. I'm sure that this weight and the stiffened joint articulation does limit mobility somewhat, but reenactors wearing such gear are NOT largely immobile when unhorsed. Assuming that they didn't get their bell rung falling, or got pinned, they would be able to continue. The myth about knights being like crippled turtles when unhorsed resulted from the very late period jousting only super-armors, where the weight alone was a tactic to keep you from getting knocked off. The famous imobility of the French knights at Agincourt was a combination of deep mud (wet ground), too many people bunched together and getting in one another's way, and exhaustion brought on by stress. The press was so tight that a number of the French are presumed to have been drowned in mud when their fellows bowled them over and then bunched over them preventing their standing up.
There are some good history channel pieces on these subjects
I knew I wasn't the only one who's seen that history channel piece on Agincourt.
If what they said was accurate, the bulk of the French forces fought on foot. But the battlefield was roughly shaped like a funnel, with the ground dropping off on the sides and Henry's army sitting at the narrow end of the funnel. How do you get a force to reduce their front by roughly 50% in the face of an enemy, in the mud, while arrows are raining down AND while everyone's trying to get to the nobles in the center so they can capture and ransom them. No one's very interested in the archers until they came out and started killing the men-at-arms.
HighLord z0b
12-07-2005, 03:24
A few things
Sun Pin at Ma Ling: Set an ambush for a superior army by writing a note and sticking on a tree in a defile. The note said that "Pang Chuan dies by this tree." Troops found it, message went up the line, and sure enough Pang couldn't resist. Then the bowmen opened up. Dead General, routed army, opposing royalty captured -- game over.
According to one of the commenteries in my copy of The Art of War, Sun Pin actually carved the note into the tree and told his archers to shoot directly when they saw a light. When Pang Chuan arrived he struck a light to read the note and was riddled with arrows. Just liked the extra detail.
Oh and I really can't agree with the "Knights were invulnerable to bodkins" argument. There are just too many vulnerable places in 14th century armour, and there were so many arrows that one commentator said "the sky went dark with arrows". The documentary I've seen only shot a few bodkins directly at a breastplate, to be a valid experiment they would need to shoot thousands of arrows at a full suit or armour, preferably a moving one to expose weaknesses at the joints.
A few things
Oh and I really can't agree with the "Knights were invulnerable to bodkins" argument. There are just too many vulnerable places in 14th century armour, and there were so many arrows that one commentator said "the sky went dark with arrows". The documentary I've seen only shot a few bodkins directly at a breastplate, to be a valid experiment they would need to shoot thousands of arrows at a full suit or armour, preferably a moving one to expose weaknesses at the joints.
It's not that knights were invulnerable to bodkins. It's that the common myth is the English won Agincourt because the longbow was so powerful you could put an arrow through a man in full armor. Which is true to the point that you could get really lucky and have an arrow penetrate a weak point or an exposed area but you're not going to reliably do so. The average person's conception of archers is Legolas, in "I'm going to put this arrow between this guy's eyes." But as you said, people shot arrows up in the air and hoped when they fell it hurt the enemy. It was about trying to put a large number of arrows in the air not targeting and aiming at a particular person. The English victory at Agincourt had several causes not the simplified Longbows > Knights that people think.
DensterNY
12-07-2005, 17:39
Sorry to take this discussion on a side note for a second because it is absolutely fascinating to read. The great thing about the Total War game series is that you can implement and use some of these same tactics in your battles for great effect.
I remember first reading about Caesar's victory over Pompey through the use of veteran spearman/infantry hidden behind calvary. I had a great battle in MTW between my English army and the Byzantine's where I lured out, isolated and decimated their heavy cavalry with my best spearmen and then proceeded, against an essentially horseless enemy, to smash my cavalry against their rear flanks over and over again.
Total War, second to none...
adembroski
12-09-2005, 11:00
Wow... no love at all for Richard "Lionheart"? Mention Saladin, but Rick went toe to toe with the guy. Suppose he doesn't have a singular 'tactical' accomplishment though.
matteus the inbred
12-09-2005, 11:34
actually adembroski, Richard I is John Gillingham's (noted medieval military historian) top choice for an early medieval commander precisely because he DIDN'T fight many battles, arguably only three (Arsuf, an extended skirmish Jaffa and one in France that i can't remember), all of which he won. medieval battles (and indeed, all battles) were uncertain things at best, and Richard was a master of using raiding and skirmishing in France to avoid confrontation. his main strength, and contemporaries agreed on this, was his expertise in siege warfare, both offensive and defensive. hence his failure to retake Jerusalem...he was good enough to know he couldn't do it.
Arsuf was quite an accomplishment by any medieval standard, using a tactically pretty inflexible army to its strengths, maintaining excellent discipline and timing the counterattack well (although some sources suggest Richard was pre-empted in this by the Military Orders)
Over 2000 years later the battlefield decisions made by Alexander and Hannibal are still debated. Alexander won victories no matter who the enemy, no matter the odds. He found a way to put at least one tactical aspect to his advantage. He seemed to always win a "Heroic" victory. Hannibal's battles differ because the have you looking at both sides. Hannibal's tactics, to include him being where he was not supposed to be. And of course, his defeats are even a better study. Just what it took to beat him.
With all that I think the battle at Marathon the among the greatest if not the greatest. For the Greeks to win against those odds was awesome.
HalfThere
01-30-2006, 03:19
If you want an example of great tactics used in a war where Us army was involved, look at the Vietnam war. The vietcong guerilla with shitty equipment defeating the most powerful army in the world is one of the most impressive tactical achievements in the history of warfare.
By body count, the U.S. was overwhelmingly successful in Vietnam. Something like a million Vietcong and NVA died to America's 50K casualties. It's simply proof that winning battles isn't the same as winning the war.
Ravenloch
01-30-2006, 03:50
I would throw in for debate The Battle of Britain. Even though it was a air campaign, it was decisive in the outcome of WWII. Never have so many owed so much to so few.
Panzermeyer
01-30-2006, 20:26
Rome did have 70,000 men on the battlefield but 20,000 managed to escape. This might have been the reason why Hannibal still could'nt march on Rome as Rome might have still been to strong to be assaulted. I do'nt know who returned to Rome but I'm pretty sure agood portion of there cavalry made it back.
Actually Hannibal did not march on Rome because he lacked the seige equipment necessary to take the walls of Rome.
Hannibal's entire plan in Italy was based on a bad strategic desicion. He believed he could crush a few of the Roman armies and/or cause the whole of Italy to rise up in rebellion to Rome and force the Romans to surrender. He did not bank on their continued desire to fight and wage war dispite incredible loses. Thuus when he went into Italy is did not go in with the forces or equipment necessary for protracted sieges.
That is ultimately why he did not win in Italy.
Hannibal it turns out was a brillant tactican, but in reality not a very capable strategic commander.
Panzermeyer
Hannibal's entire plan in Italy was based on a bad strategic desicion. He believed he could crush a few of the Roman armies and/or cause the whole of Italy to rise up in rebellion to Rome and force the Romans to surrender. He did not bank on their continued desire to fight and wage war dispite incredible loses. Thuus when he went into Italy is did not go in with the forces or equipment necessary for protracted sieges.
That is ultimately why he did not win in Italy.
I think that this is a case of hindsight being 20/20. Hannibal knew very well that the Romans would not give up. They hadn't given up in the First Punic War either, despite appalling loses. His plan was probably to trounce the Romans on their own ground, which would invite their allies to reconsider their position. And he did succeed in this to some extent, as several cities joined his cause. However, the Carthaginian senate did not support him, and the reinforcements (led by his brother) were defeated before they could reach him, so eventually he was forced to withdraw. But he came very close, and with a bit more support he may have stripped Rome of its allies entirely. In this case, history would have been dramatically different.
I definatly like Mansteins counter-offensive at Kharkov 1943, where he litreally broke the Soviet armored spearhead directed West. Over 600 destroyed tanks and 1000 guns were captured by the germans. It is a very nice example of a well-timed "Schlag aus der Rueckhand" or strike from the backhand, a fine and timehonered technique - see Cannae - duable only with experienced troops.
It really reminds me also of the teachings of Sun Tzu, and the lesson of Judo: use your enemys momentum - strenght - to defeat him;
Gealai
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.