ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Granted, Xenophon's Ten Thousand weren't an integrated force, but Marathon, Thermopylae, Anabasis, and the Sacred Band are the most it can be hoped that a casual student of history will be familiar with.
And yes, comparing such disparate peoples and periods is rather silly, but Ajidica's statement was in direct response to Ubik01's claim that the phalanx constituted a military system (debatable, at best) while the Mongol "Horde" did not.
The fact remains, that until Philip, the phalanx was not only the arm of decision in Greek warfare, it was practically the only arm. The phalanx was an excellent tactical innovation, but one tactical innovation does not a military system make. Beyond lacking a leader as talented and ambitious as Alexander himself (yes, a Greek, I'll not argue that), one of the reasons that the Greeks didn't conquer even a small portion of the Persian Empire is that the phalanx was, essentially, an excellent weapon, as attested to by the Persian habit of employing hoplite mercenaries (more parallells to the Swiss), but it was not a system that could adapt to myriad situational challenges or that could meet the logistical challenges of maintaining offensive operations beyond the next planting or harvesting season in lands far from the army's recruiting base.
And yes, comparing such disparate peoples and periods is rather silly, but Ajidica's statement was in direct response to Ubik01's claim that the phalanx constituted a military system (debatable, at best) while the Mongol "Horde" did not.
The fact remains, that until Philip, the phalanx was not only the arm of decision in Greek warfare, it was practically the only arm. The phalanx was an excellent tactical innovation, but one tactical innovation does not a military system make. Beyond lacking a leader as talented and ambitious as Alexander himself (yes, a Greek, I'll not argue that), one of the reasons that the Greeks didn't conquer even a small portion of the Persian Empire is that the phalanx was, essentially, an excellent weapon, as attested to by the Persian habit of employing hoplite mercenaries (more parallells to the Swiss), but it was not a system that could adapt to myriad situational challenges or that could meet the logistical challenges of maintaining offensive operations beyond the next planting or harvesting season in lands far from the army's recruiting base.
Again, I'll disagree with you on the dating. It wasn't Philip who 'invented' combined arms or a semblance of a tactical system in Greek warfare. Agesilaos, for instance, employed an integrated instrument in the 390s in western Anatolia. Apparently his cavalry in particular was good (something that has confused historians ever since Xenophon wrote about it); Herippidas, for instance, led a coordinated infantry-cavalry surprise attack on Pharnabazos' camp at Kaue with sound intelligence and scattered the satrap's army. Employment of mercenaries with non-seasonal campaigning limitations was widespread before the end of the Peloponnesian War. Coordination of light infantry with heavier forces is evidenced all over the place, most famously by Demosthenes in his Aitolian campaign of 426 but hell, even the Spartans widely employed psiloi of various stripes during the conflict. Employment of cavalry as an arm 'of decision' wasn't really extant before the end of the war, but I'm not sure that that's a requirement for a "military system" (a rather nebulously defined term); the fact that, for instance, the Thebans of Pagondas employed cavalry in a screening and intelligence-denial role in coordination with heavy-infantry tactics seems to indicate a relevant degree of integration without employing the cavalry as the decisive element.
Anyway, I think we're mostly just arguing specifics at this point and can both agree that the "Greek"-"Mongol" comparison was stupid.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
I was under the impression that the phalanx employed by the Macedonians (didn't Thebes adopt it also?) was a different system from the classical hoplites of Marathon fame. I would say that the Macedonian phalanx-heavy cavalry combination constitutes a military system, but the classical hoplites don't.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,502
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Tru dat'.
But this is a false dichotomy. Philip's army was not a revolutionary departure from previous armies, it was evolutionary, and its chief innovations lay less in the field of combined arms than in an altered tactical disposition for the phalanx itself (usually, the Mak variety of the phalanx is referred to as the syntagma). Iason of Pherai, Agesilaos II, Iphikrates, Epaminondas, Pagondas, Demosthenes - all these men integrated heavy infantry, light infantry, and cavalry in various ways that could quite aptly be called a "military system". Even Philip's pezos was mostly an incremental alteration of the Iphikratid hoplite.
markantony
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 205
Ireland? Ireland has an army of 8000 and no MBTs. Its airforce is negligable and the navy has 8 40 year old patrol boats.
G-Max
Deity
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,556
Regardless, they have modern military technology and a home-field advantage, which would make their combined abilities a nasty thorn in our side.
Well, a Sino-Soviet alliance could have pretty well roflpwned western Europe thanks to Russia's nukes and China's population. The USA would have been a tougher nut to crack thanks to widespread gun-ownership and a '50s-era fetish for bomb shelters, but we'd never be able to take the fight to the enemy.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
False. The Soviet rail network was not in good enough shape or had enough resources to transfer the vast number of Chinese troops needed to breach the European defenses (which, due to a lucky coincedence of geography, has most of the rivers running north-south).
Bull. The guns in the fifties would have been ye olde shotguns, hunting rifles, and some ye olde handguns. A force that could defeat us on our own shores would have no problem slicing through a motley assortment of people with poor quality guns, no training, and little to no logistical support.
If it is nuclear, bomb shelters simply extend your life until you starve to death or fresh water runs out. The fifties 'backyard bombshelters' were useless against nuclear weaponry. Even the nuclear shelters you can see in old civic buildings were pretty much useless against nuclear weaponry.Against conventional weaponry, possibly they might be useful but I don't think they were widespread enough..
Send a few cruise missiles/ICBMs into Tokyo and the important sea ports. Japan is out of the problem.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Anyway, I think we're mostly just arguing specifics at this point and can both agree that the "Greek"-"Mongol" comparison was stupid.
Agreed. Greek/Hellenistic warfare is not my area of expertise. I just find the overestimation of (the not inconsiderable) capabilities and complexities of the hoplite by many enthusiasts of military history annoying. Like the samurai, who did Sparta ever defeat besides others fighting in essentially the same style? People make movies about the samurai and Sparta, so they must be the GREATEST.WARRIORS.EVER!
Similarly, I always bristle at the assumption that the Mongols were merely a "horde" that only ever won by sheer weight of numbers.
I did include the Russians (in general) and the Chinese (post-1949) as potential equals. As to the US, read my post again: I included the traditional European powers (NATO) and the US as the only real powers excepting Russia, China (post-1949) and Japan (early 20th Century).
Quackers
The Frog
You know what is happening in Afghanistan right now? The Americans can't beat a bunch of goat herders even with the most technologically advanced and sophisticated weapons the world has ever seen.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Yes, the Taliban militants have access to automatic weapons, decades of experiance (or at least leaders with decades of experiance), and living in what is the best guerilla warfare territory one can find, all the while fighting an enemy that isn't trying to subjugate the country. If America was ever invaded and occupied, especialy by the Russians, you can bet they aren't going to try and install an independant government.
You know what is happening in Afghanistan right now? The Americans can't beat a bunch of goat herders even with the most technologically advanced and sophisticated weapons the world has ever seen.
markantony
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 205
The Taliban are not civilians. Plus the Americans are not trying to occupy that country.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Play my mod and see if you can.
Best to play Germany at Diety level. The AI is too weak otherwise.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
It is the age old problem. In many cases, a civilian is a militant without a gun and a militant is a civilian with a gun.
I thought I said that in my post?
markantony
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 205
Yes and no. You can`t really compare a civilian with a gun, to guerrillas. The IRA were not blokes in pubs given guns and neither are the Taliban.
I was replying to the other guy.
Quackers
The Frog
Americans have access to automatic weapons, no? I'm sure any leader of an American insurgency will have military training, and I am certain you can find adequate guerilla warfare territory in the massive continent of the USA.
I mean Fidel castro invaded Cuba with 82 men on a rickety ship. Only 20 of those men survived and they fled up into the mountains - they still managed to defeat the Cuban army
. It seems to me, if you have a cause people are worth dying for, territory favourable for guerilla warfare and access to some weapons - your extremely hard to defeat.
