5 ms·

> the key to winning in ancient warfare was never to run away. Not really true. "Hold the line" battle is practically a modern invention. Battle for most of

> the key to winning in ancient warfare was never to run away. Not really true. "Hold the line" battle is practically a modern invention. Battle for most of human history looked more like guerilla campaigns and surprise massacres. The Vikings, Mongols, Iroquoi and so on had no problem with the "He who fights and runs away..." sentiment. Thinking strategists win wars, not pumped up jocks.

pg 19y ago
You can defend territory with guerilla techniques, but not conquer it. An aggressive warrior society has to be ready to fight pitched battles. And if you try to run away in a pitched battle, the cavalry rides you down and you get a spear in the back. The best book I know of on this subject is Hanson's The Western Way of War. Though frankly for such a basic point any book on ancient warfare would do.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- kingkongrevenge 19y ago
  > frankly for such a basic point Hoplite battle is specific to a time and place. The Mongols conquered more territory than anyone, ever, with mounted archers and ready retreats. Accounts of battle in the French and Indian War probably best represent the norm when it comes to human warfare. It was characterized by raids and slaughter of civilians, not pitched battle with no retreat.
  - majimojo 19y ago
    I have to agree with kingkong here. Organized Horse Archers cannot be beat by any pre-gunpowder army. People like to the label the mongols as "The Horde." But a Mongol Army of 25k consistently beat armies 5 times its size. It basically comes down to the fact that they have faster horses than you, and their composite bows have 150% the distance of even the English Long Bow (and can be fired from the saddle). If your army had these two qualities, what would you do? The downside is that its hard to defend the empire that you've conquered using horse archery. Alexander the Great reputedly defeated Scythian horse archers, but he left no records as to how this is was achieved. He probably used his companion cavalry to chase the horse archers against a river or into a forest. Like what the romans did to Hannibal's father. I think the Egyptians were able to beat the Mongols ONCE but only with superior numbers and a lot of preparation. Anyway, it is USUALLY true that winning a war is about who's side has stronger will to fight. Who said that? Xenophon? But tactically, horse archers that always run away cannot be beat. They rain arrows down upon you, burn your farms and supply lines, and taunt your huge 200,000 man armies out to be crushed in a simulatenous attack on all sides by 5 different columns of Horse Archers all arriving at the same time. They are will-breakers. Like startups picking away at slow thinking corporations. This is similar to how the Athenians eventually defeated the Spartans by never engaging them in close combat and raining arrows and spears on them. Tactics. Not exactly the bravest thing, the Spartans would have called this Womanly fighting. With the advent of gunpowder, artillery, and combined arms. You can't pull this off anymore. Thank god. Lesson: Mongols only fight pitched battles they've already won. Although for us startup guys, the point that PG might be impressing is that, its the company with the most determination that wins. Not the one with the most money/people. kingkong here is implying that tactics and adaptive thinking is the key, not just having a hard head and tunnel vision.

pg 19y ago

You can defend territory with guerilla techniques, but not conquer it. An aggressive warrior society has to be ready to fight pitched battles. And if you try to run away in a pitched battle, the cavalry rides you down and you get a spear in the back. The best book I know of on this subject is Hanson's The Western Way of War. Though frankly for such a basic point any book on ancient warfare would do.

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
kingkongrevenge 19y ago
> frankly for such a basic point Hoplite battle is specific to a time and place. The Mongols conquered more territory than anyone, ever, with mounted archers and ready retreats. Accounts of battle in the French and Indian War probably best represent the norm when it comes to human warfare. It was characterized by raids and slaughter of civilians, not pitched battle with no retreat.
- majimojo 19y ago
  I have to agree with kingkong here. Organized Horse Archers cannot be beat by any pre-gunpowder army. People like to the label the mongols as "The Horde." But a Mongol Army of 25k consistently beat armies 5 times its size. It basically comes down to the fact that they have faster horses than you, and their composite bows have 150% the distance of even the English Long Bow (and can be fired from the saddle). If your army had these two qualities, what would you do? The downside is that its hard to defend the empire that you've conquered using horse archery. Alexander the Great reputedly defeated Scythian horse archers, but he left no records as to how this is was achieved. He probably used his companion cavalry to chase the horse archers against a river or into a forest. Like what the romans did to Hannibal's father. I think the Egyptians were able to beat the Mongols ONCE but only with superior numbers and a lot of preparation. Anyway, it is USUALLY true that winning a war is about who's side has stronger will to fight. Who said that? Xenophon? But tactically, horse archers that always run away cannot be beat. They rain arrows down upon you, burn your farms and supply lines, and taunt your huge 200,000 man armies out to be crushed in a simulatenous attack on all sides by 5 different columns of Horse Archers all arriving at the same time. They are will-breakers. Like startups picking away at slow thinking corporations. This is similar to how the Athenians eventually defeated the Spartans by never engaging them in close combat and raining arrows and spears on them. Tactics. Not exactly the bravest thing, the Spartans would have called this Womanly fighting. With the advent of gunpowder, artillery, and combined arms. You can't pull this off anymore. Thank god. Lesson: Mongols only fight pitched battles they've already won. Although for us startup guys, the point that PG might be impressing is that, its the company with the most determination that wins. Not the one with the most money/people. kingkong here is implying that tactics and adaptive thinking is the key, not just having a hard head and tunnel vision.