Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which military leader do you most admire?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Is that using the same weapons and technology?
    A lot more than that. My people could read. Most of Alexander's men could not. And there are a lot of things that won't make sense on today's battlefield even it both sides are armed with modern weapons. The phalanx is just a big plain old target.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    He remains a fascinating study of how he took out the leaders in a decapitating stroke and the army fell apart. That has modern day equivalent examples such as the decapitation of Saddam's General Staff from the rest of the Iraqi armed forces.
    As compared to Deep Battle?

    Comment


    • #47
      Hmm...dunno. General George Patton was a hell of a character though

      Nebula82.

      Comment


      • #48
        I agree with some of the things you say OoE but if you compare combat back then and now it has evolved so much and it is quite different , but my point was that troughout history many of the notable leaders such as hannibal, napoleon , patton even julius cesar and many others, they all relied on alexander's strategy , they all used same patterns than he did and they all had great succes yet none even given the age was different and evolved so much more and they all had so much more to read and learn none of them did what alexander did and none ever will , today you have basicaly every knowledge you need , they teach you everything and of course you need a lot more to be a great leader but heck back then there was nothing , yet he used it in battle and in 10 years did what nobody else till today and that is why I think based on a leader himself Alexander is the golden standard for everybody.
        Now im confident you could crush him today like you said but let me ask you something , if you led the macedonians in the battle of guagemela back then and have the knowledge they had back then with your 47,000 men against probably around 250,000 based on different sources , could you have did what alexander did and win the battle , losing just around 1000 men while on the other side over 50,000 soldiers fell and more held captive , could you have did that?

        Comment


        • #49
          You do realize that Alexander never defeated the horse mounted archers, the Synthians.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            The phalanx is just a big plain old target.
            For siege weapons? such as catapults and cataracts (sp?) Remember the biggest weaknesses of such catapults and cataracts were that they were largely immobile and vulnerable to quick strikes or raids designed to take them out.

            As compared to Deep Battle?
            How can Deep Battle be applied using Alexander's era of weapons, technology, and communications? Remember that the logistics of Alexander's era was largely different from today's era.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              For siege weapons? such as catapults and cataracts (sp?)
              Trebuchet, perhaps? Just FYI.:)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                Trebuchet, perhaps? Just FYI.:)
                Trebuchet?Touche' mon Capitan:)
                "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  For siege weapons? such as catapults and cataracts (sp?) Remember the biggest weaknesses of such catapults and cataracts were that they were largely immobile and vulnerable to quick strikes or raids designed to take them out.
                  Take it within context. There's a reason why your force stays behind in a castle and that's because you are inferior to the outside force who wants you to come out and do battle. If you come out to attack the siege weapons, then you must offer battle of the seige force's terms.

                  Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  How can Deep Battle be applied using Alexander's era of weapons, technology, and communications? Remember that the logistics of Alexander's era was largely different from today's era.
                  You mean like Genghis Khan ... who btw never heard of Alexander.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Take it within context. There's a reason why your force stays behind in a castle and that's because you are inferior to the outside force who wants you to come out and do battle. If you come out to attack the siege weapons, then you must offer battle of the seige force's terms.
                    Or the castle will act as the anvil and your outside force that you have placed a couple miles away hidden to act as the hammer.

                    I do not think too much of siege weapons. Walls are made to fall or to be breached. But it does act as a wonderful choke point. If I was the castle commander, I would just make the other army work its ass off to work its way into the castle. First I would make sure that their supplies run incredibly low and then offer them a tantalizing target where it can be breached but will be an choke point. Then I would evacuate the citizens (if I haven't already emptied the castle of unnecessary citizens to preserve food stocks and water stocks and cut down risks of diseases and plagues) using a hidden passageway that leads them out of the castle to safety beyond the siege. Then I would inflict many casualties as I can and when it can be no more, then I would order the destruction of the food stocks and water stocks and purposefully leave a couple stocks laden with disease and plague and burn everything else and evacuate the castle. The invading force would be then a spent force, no longer able to keep on the castle when food stocks have been depleted and water depleted and poisoned. Their army would be full of sick and dying soldiers rendered combat ineffective. When they finally move out of the castle in search of better pastures so to speak, then that's the time to strike hard and hit the leadership circles and their wagons and carts that are carrying their last precious supplies. I would think that would finish off the force, now left in shambles.

                    You mean like Genghis Khan ... who btw never heard of Alexander.
                    I wonder why no one has ever thought to kill the grains or stuff that horses need to eat on. I would think that would seriously hamper the mobility of Genghis Khan's armies and severely limit their expansion due to logistics problems. Using the technology and weapons of the day, how would you stop Genghis Khan and his armies cold in its tracks or destroy them? I would not use the Marmalukes example because they were only against a raiding force, not the entire army or orgde (sp? it is a Mongol term meaning army)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Or the castle will act as the anvil and your outside force that you have placed a couple miles away hidden to act as the hammer.
                      Say like a Mongol Army?

                      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      I wonder why no one has ever thought to kill the grains or stuff that horses need to eat on. I would think that would seriously hamper the mobility of Genghis Khan's armies and severely limit their expansion due to logistics problems. Using the technology and weapons of the day, how would you stop Genghis Khan and his armies cold in its tracks or destroy them? I would not use the Marmalukes example because they were only against a raiding force, not the entire army or orgde (sp? it is a Mongol term meaning army)
                      Wet grass don't burn well.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Say like a Mongol Army?

                        Wet grass don't burn well.
                        Actually if you get enough heat going, wet grass ain't gonna do much. The heat would evaporate the water fueling more oxygen into the fire.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                          Actually if you get enough heat going, wet grass ain't gonna do much. The heat would evaporate the water fueling more oxygen into the fire.
                          And if Napoleon had had B-52s at Waterloo......:))

                          This thread has slid so far off of the rails.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            You do realize that Alexander never defeated the horse mounted archers, the Synthians.
                            I have no idea what your trying to say here but the point is if you compare commanders during history none accomplished as much in 12 years as he , none rewrote so much brilliant solutions that were used and are used or applied similar even today in battles than he , no other was a idol and fundamental character for other incredible commanders in developing their own tactics in battle than him even today you can ask all the great commanders who they looked up to who is their idol and even tho there were many brilliant commanders during WW2 and alot of them will choose Patton , Rommel.. im sure that most will say Alexander the Great.
                            But I strongly believe if anyone could be up there with Alexander as the greatest its Genghis Khan , I fail to see and understand how Napoleon , Hannibal , Patton... could be even compared to them , they were smart and had their moments but really they can not be compared to what the two achieved.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              As a military leader, Alexander is subpar. His brilliance was that he could read the battlefield better than his opponents but the very fact was that he could not see beyond what he could not see. He never imagined a battle 100 miles away wheras both Patton and Rommel needed to do so. That kind of vision was not required until the time of Rome.

                              2ndly, his brilliance could not be passed on wheras the fundamentals devised by Napoleon, the regiment system, formed the basis of all modern day military formations. Alexander's phalanx was easily eclipsed by the Roman Legion.

                              And the point you failed to notice about the Synthians is that the Synthians were Steppe people, the same branch as the Huns, the Turks, and the Mongols. Alexander's failure against that force meant his brilliance could not overcome the basis of modern day military doctrine - maneuver warfare.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I forgot the name of the battle but it was two battles between the Greeks and the Romans where the Romans showed the legion formations were far superior to the phalanx formations.

                                What would the Romans's answer be to the manuever warfare posed by the Mongols and Synthians?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X