Best Military Strategy of its Time

[Redleg]

The first combined arms use ever (not in the modern sence though... aircrafts were not invented back then...) is by Alexander the Great. ...

Yes and no - Alexander the Great did use many concepts that were similiar to combined arms warfare. Several older battles were also fought using the combined arms that were availiable during the time period.

And then the question was

Ok, who used combined arms first in modern warfare?

Alexander the Great hardly qualifies when using the term modern warfare.

[Advo-san]

This discussion has such a blurred topic...
1)Define arms.
2)Define combined.
3)Define warfare.
4)Define modern.

[Rosacrux redux]

Alexander is my pet peeve, so... there goes. And seing he was bisexual and quite a party animal, he sure is more modern than some 19th and 20th and even 21st century stiffs, of the "morality uber alles" conglomerate...

And I believe I said

not in the modern sence though... aircrafts were not invented back then...

So...

P.S. Methinks Advo-san is right, in a way...

[Redleg]

This discussion has such a blurred topic..

1)Define arms. - Arms is easy really - its weapons. In the case of modern usage of the term its means weapon types and systems

2)Define combined.- just what the word implies - a combination of types of forces.

3)Define warfare. - again easy - where two opposing forces meet using violence to settle the issue.

4)Define modern. - that one gets tricky - most historians define modern as sometime after the Industrial Revolution. The exact date seems to move around based upon what area of history you are refering to.

From Wikipedia

Modern warfare is a complex affair, involving the widespread use of highly adavanced technology. As a term, it is normally taken as referring to conflicts involving one or more first world powers, within the modern electronic era. However, this is not to say that third world countries do not also engage in war, although they are more prone to the use of low-tech weaponry and guerilla tactics. This complex subject can be broken down and divided into a variety of categories and subcategories

and again from Wikipedia

Early modern warfare is associated with the start of the widespread use of gunpowder and the development of suitable weapons to use the explosive. It begins, in Europe and the Middle East, during the middle of the fifteenth century and lasts until the end of the eighteenth century.

The current understanding of early modern warfare comes from the works of Michael Roberts who argued that a military revolution occurred in the sixteenth century that forever changed warfare, and society in general. Since he wrote in the 1950s his narrative has been augmented and challenged by other scholars. When exactly the revolution occurred is debated, and whether it was revolution or a slow transformation is also discussed.

Alexander is my pet peeve, so... there goes. And seing he was bisexual and quite a party animal, he sure is more modern than some 19th and 20th and even 21st century stiffs, of the "morality uber alles" conglomerate

So do you pet Alexander a lot

Alexander does not fit into the defination of modern warfare - no matter how one attempts to state it.

[Rosacrux redux]

So do you pet Alexander a lot .

Alexander does not fit into the defination of modern warfare - no matter how one attempts to state it.

Yah, modern warfare maybe... but he was modern in his times, no?

[LeftEyeNine]

The terms "strategy" and "tactics" are commonly used in discipline of bussiness.

In business terms, you play your tactics to reach your goal - which is defined briefly as your strategy.

Strategy is a general purpose - say, "We will grow by increasing our market share by %10 by the end of this year"

And when you increase your promotion expenditures or buy some smaller company in the market to enlarge your market share or any other "tricks" to reach your strategy defined, you are counted to be applying tactics.

And I bet that conquering Istanbul in order to gain geographical, religious and psychologic advantage was the strategy of Ottomans in their growing times. And building of Anadolu Hisari (the fortress built on the Anatolian Side before the conquest - I do not know how you call it) to control the sea around Istanbul was a tactic to achieve the strategy.

So I may mention the famous Turan (or Hilal- translated as Crescent ) formation in which the frontmen of the Turkish army used to make a fake setback in order to persuade the opposing army to follow them, while the mounted wings of the army were covering the rivals around and from the back. The end was a total demolition of the caged opposing army.

And this is the Turan tactic, I must say.

[master of the puppets]

i have to say one of the most effective is the roman infantry block, i forget if it had an exact name (its not the testudo) but it was just a solid mass of soldiers, shoulder to shoulder back to front and a hundred deep and a hundred wide. it was nearly unbreakable by cavalry infantry or archers. one of itsa main flaws was its sheer size. it could not be menuevered so it was simply a defensive tactic.

[Papewaio]

A hundred deep and a hundred wide?

That is 10,000 men... two legions.