Historic Dispays of Tactical Ingenuity

[BOTP]

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]

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]

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]

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(

[Oaty]

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]

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.

[Panzermeyer]

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

[BOTP]

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.

[Ludens]

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".

[BOTP]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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).

[HalfThere]

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]

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.