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.

[Ptah]

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]

Borodino was NOT one of them. Bloodiest mistake of Napoleons history.

[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.

[Ludens]

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]

This is a great thread, folks!

Anybody got any particularly well-loved websites about great battles of tactical ingenuity?

[Deus Ex]

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]

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]

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.

[Spartan117300]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...