El Diablo, yes, the distinction between the scales of warfare is important. Do we talk about battles or campaigns? In single battles a defensive approach can of course be favourable. But you are also of course right when you say offensive campaigns are the winning strategy.

Swedishfish, was the war in Vietnam really "won" by Vietnam? They managed to avoid defeat, yes, but I don't see a vietnameese flag hanging from the white house... Get my point?

Also, in reference to the game I must say the modern exampels are worthless, as very much has changed. In medieval times, the MAIN factor why offensive warfare was to prefer was that the armies then lived of the enemys land, not your own... having a standing army at home was extremly costly, having them on enemies terriatory was in comparison cheaper. And of course, if you fought a defensive war, not only did you have your own army on your lands, but also the enemies...

So yeah, that list is for me bleh... only medieval examples are battles, and you can pretty much prove ANY military theory if a single battle is all you need to verify it.

To draw it to an extreme... I once saw a guy hit another guy. The guy who was hit got his elbow up by reflex, splitting the knuckles of the attacker...

CONCLUSION: The way to win a fight is to let the other guy beat on you till he hurts himself.