"Wars are not won by military genius or decisive battles" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Media Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe first militia for the AK47 "opposing army."
Featured Workbench ArticleSam shows how to paint a vehicle, starting with silver and gold.
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 06 May 2017 11:40 a.m. PST |
"War is the most complex, physically and morally demanding enterprise we undertake. No great art or music, no cathedral or temple or mosque, no intercontinental transport net or particle collider or space programme, no research for a cure for a mass-killing disease receives a fraction of the resources and effort we devote to making war. Or to recovery from war and preparations for future wars invested over years, even decades, of tentative peace. War is thus far more than a strung-together tale of key battles. Yet, traditional military history presented battles as fulcrum moments where empires rose or fell in a day, and most people still think that wars are won that way, in an hour or an afternoon of blood and bone. Or perhaps two or three. We must understand the deeper game, not look only to the scoring. That is hard to do because battles are so seductive. War evokes our fascination with spectacle, and there is no greater stage or more dramatic players than on a battlefield. We are drawn to battles by a lust of the eye, thrilled by a blast from a brass horn as Roman legionaries advance in glinting armour or when a king's wave releases mounted knights in a heavy cavalry charge. Grand battles are open theatre with a cast of many tens of thousands: samurai under signal kites, mahouts mounted on elephants, a Zulu impi rushing over lush grass toward a redcoat firing line. Battles open with armies dressed in red, blue or white, flags fluttering, fife and drums beating the advance. Or with the billowing canvas of a line of fighting sail, white pufferies erupting in broadside volleys. Or a wedge of tanks hard-charging over the Russian steppe. What comes next is harder to comprehend. The idea of the ‘decisive battle' as the hinge of war, and wars as the gates of history, speaks to our naive desire to view modern war in heroic terms. Popular histories are written still in a drums-and-trumpets style, with vivid depictions of combat divorced from harder logistics, daily suffering, and a critical look at the societies and cultures that produced mass armies and sent them off to fight in faraway fields for causes about which the average soldier knew nothing…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Sudwind | 06 May 2017 9:19 p.m. PST |
I don't know. The battle for Berlin seemed pretty decisive. I think that pretty much snuffed out the Third Reich. Waterloo seemed pretty decisive. The twin victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg seemed to be decisive. That war preserved the Union and ended slavery. War sucks, but so does evil. As long as there are folks willing to oppress, slaughter and rob others for gain, I suggest we keep our swords sharp. |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 07 May 2017 11:10 a.m. PST |
The disastrous Russian campaign, including the loss of an entire army group at Stalingrad, was probably the turning point in the European theater. One could argue that the decision to invade the USSR before subduing the UK was actually the turning point. |
Pan Marek | 07 May 2017 2:40 p.m. PST |
Sudwind- One could make very good arguments that the battle of Berlin was an inevitable coda to a very long war dependent as much on the allies grinding Germany down over time, with significant help from intelligence coups. Similarly, although somewhat in reverse, Gettysburg and Vicksburg were important, but more from political/moral purposes than overall "victory". In the end, it was the Union's ability to grind down the CSA that won the war. |
VVV reply | 08 May 2017 1:57 a.m. PST |
Anyone who has soldiered for real, knows that you spend most of your time outside, probably eating lousy food, wearing the same clothes day after day. I found nothing glamorous about it at all. As to war, its a way of getting other people to do what you want, regardless of what they want. Or of course you kill them. |
mildbill | 08 May 2017 9:11 p.m. PST |
War, second oldest profession. "God is on the side of the bigger battalions." Wallenstein |
|