3 ms·
given enough battles and enough chess matches, one can find enough correlations. The same could be said about football games or kitchen recepes. It remains doub
by gostsamo 3y ago
given enough battles and enough chess matches, one can find enough correlations. The same could be said about football games or kitchen recepes. It remains doubtful if those analogies could be used for something productive or they would serve to stroke someone's snobbish ego.
- hef19898 3y agoI guess the article is ego. No hint of actually studying military history deeply enough to be more than a Wellington fan boy. Don't get me wrong, Wellington was brilliant commander. But covering the Battle of Waterloo in one short paragraph, saying it was Wellington who defeated Napoleon, without even hinting at the Prussian contribution and some command and control issues on the French side (parts of Napoleons army came late) is, well, sad for someone who actually studied history. But well, how else would you be able to write about your Wellington-style chess game? Edit: Oh dear, Agincourt. Famously, the ground was so muddy that day that French armored knights had to fight on foot... No, English longbow men did not defeat armoured cavalery, said cavalery fought as armored infantry. One could imagine how it would have went if French could have fought indeed on horse back...
- Wildgoose 3y agoRe Agincourt. The ground was so muddy that the French armoured knights had to walk their horses rather than charge. That's not the same as fighting on foot - or at least, not until your mount has been killed beneath you by English and Welsh longbowmen raining arrows on your densely packed (and slow-moving) forces.
- dopidopHN 3y agoI had similar thoughts. It échos with one of yesterday submitted link on “being wary of neat stories in history” ( I paraphrased )