OP Battle Strategies

THAT IS A TACTIC, NOT A STRATEGY.

>he doesn't know the difference between tactics, strategy, and formations
Nigga you need to learn about this shit before you post

>youtube.com/watch?v=d8LiQFnkuJY

Honestly this is fucking insane.

Fortunately swamp niggers didn't have access to strong horses or the discipline to form a proper charge.

THAT'S AUTISM, NOT A POST

>Battle Strategies
>Phalanx
That's called battle formations, you zionist fuck.

>battle strategy
>posts battle tactics

>calls others out for mistaking tactics for strategy
>makes the same mistake himself

m8 i was trying to help OP

>Actually, phalanxes tended to be pretty arrow resistant, at least to the sorts of bows they were facing when it was a thing.
>indogreek states drop phalanx completely because they got shot.
lolno.

>Bunch of black guys on tiny African horses defeat Roman allies on horses.

Were the Roman allies uses donkeys?

Except that isn't what happened. try again.

Hannibal had Spanish mercenaries bro

surround enemy and harrass and feint all day, raid their baggage train and fatigue them, near the end of the day intentionally create a gap to encourage them to rout then charge for real

I suppose it is easy when you're all cavalry though

MEMES, MEMES EVERYWHERE

Also you mean tactics, not strategies

It is though. The Chinese say that the Dayuan (Greeks in Ferghana) and the Daxia (Bactria) fought mainly as cavalry. The Ferghana horse was considered the best breed in the region.

The only infantry we hear of them is the Chinese word "Fischscale formation." Which frankly means they returned to more flexible Hoplite formations.

You're a fucking dumb ass ignoramus, shut the fuck up

I gotta ask why the greeks didnt make their armor longer

So basically Cannea, considered to be the greatest display of military brilliance in human history, would've failed if the Roman cavalry had defeated the Spanish, Celtic and Numidian cavalry?

That seems like a pretty risky factor for a brilliant plan. It turns out this entire strategy rested on the edge of a knife.

March separate fight united.

What you post is a tactic

Most great battles rested on the edge of a knife.

Alexander the Great got lucky at gaugamela

They had a shield

>35 seconds in
>Your men are running, sir!

The op posted a battle formation, not a tactic, nor a strategy.

This board is full of idiots.

But nigga you could at least protect more incase the enemy got behind your shield. I just wouldnt feel safe unless my balls were covered

Well then extent the question to: Why did virtually no one have armor covering that in the past 5000 years of global history. By the way, you were sorta fucked if they got much beyond your shield anyways.

Combined Arms
/thread

Not Op, but I just looked up the difference between strategy and tactics and it all falls to:

>A strategy is a large-scale action (or series of actions) >A tactic is a small-scale action (or series of actions)

To put it in simpler terms, let's bring up the Total War games: the Campaign Map is where you apply your strategies while the Battle Map is where you apply your tactics, right?

It's sad that most dictionaries seem to make them interchangeable though. I always thought they were synonims.

>The op posted a battle formation, not a tactic, nor a strategy.

Nor an empire.

So if I'm allowed to be cynical, brilliance is pretty much the same as luck? And whether or not a certain move is seen as brilliant or retarded simply depends on its outcome? So if Hannibal's cavalry failed, he'd be remembered as the guy responsible for Carthage's demise rather than a military genius?

This was a fairly OP battle strategy

Brilliance is making fewer mistakes than the enemy. No general ever came up with a foolproof plan and even the best plans turned out horrible because they hinged on a single thing happening or not happening.

Battles are about odds, a good general can definitely alter the odds in his favor but he cannot eliminate them. The worlds best general at the head of a well trained army might have 98% odds of winning his next battle but there will always be this small chance something happens.

Makes sense, but that still makes Cannae a bit surpring to me. The way I see it from my armcharir general's armchair, his box strategy hinged on two important factors:

1. His infantry not routing and retreating
2. His cavalry defeating and routing the roman cavalry

The first he accounted for. By himself being near the center of his line, he showed his faith in his tactic. He and his soldiers both knew that if the soldiers routed, Hannibal would personally be fucked.

What about the cavalry part? Especially the allied vs Numidian cavalry seems to be very equal numerically speaking. What made him put so much faith in their ability to defeat the Roman cavalry? Because they were instrumental, and if they routed then not only would the box be unable to close, but the entire situation could be reversed in Rome's favor.

>he doesn't know about jugurtha and the op numidians

Every general has to count on number one. Battles are not about slaughtering as many of the enemy as possible, they're about the enemy quitting the field in ordered retreat or a rout.

As for two, I believe he did not divide his cavalry in equal halves on both his flanks. He had a numerical superiority on one side and he knew Roman cavalry was shit.

Because that skirt has nice spunk that would be ruined if it was longer

...

Yay, an actual strategy!

Courland pocket?

This

Guys like Julius Caesar were good because they did things such as try to get the enemy to fight with the sun in their eyes, making them skip breakfast etc. Little things to tip the odds in their favor and still many battles were won by a hair

Operation Bagration.

I finished his book like a month ago and I recall one of his early battles close to a river crossing being nearly lost, besieged garrisons nearly losing and even having to push it hard at Alesia.

Wow what specific battle?

Logistics thread when?

Because running around with some hardened linen shiet over your legs and dick must be a hassle.

That was the function of those leather strips at the ending of the linothorax.

Didnt the popularity of the phalanx come to an end with the rise of the roman empire?

>making them skip breakfast

Germans favored the Phalanx and I don't think they dropped it until after the fall of the western roman empire.

Not sure if you see shield wall as phalanx but that is what the Romans called it.

underated

...

>milinda's army described as a regular indian army with contingent of archers
>greeks are described as fighting with the aspis shield by sri lankans and indians

>"you are a retard"

Not a single mention of a tercio.

I'm disappointed as ever.

Why indeed. maybe they actually were longer and artists just liked to show off the nuts. Since I cant find a single vase painting of a gorget yet they had them in ancient greece pic related. Plus it was more individual on how the armor looked as well as if the owner wanted small flaps or larger and less of them or simply one row.

Its not really a problem, I made my own and it doesnt hinder my running.

This guy gets it ;)

The brusilov offensive was pretty neat, would have fucked up the Germans better and harder if logistics didn't become such an issue.

whats the dating on the gorget?

I know its before 350 bc but im not exactly sure because I cant find much info on it. However philip of macedonia had one in his grave so we know they had them then, pic related is one from his grave

What are the specs on them?

Again I cant really get info because they are usually overlooked and so either not mentioned from online sources and even in museums they are placed away from armor. Even in the exhibit the gorget isnt anywhere near the armor.

I've always found WW2 British Strategy in North Africa to be interesting, especially since as far as I could understand, they relied heavily on Rommel's consistent inability to provide adequate supply and logistics channels.

Here is another one from some far off museum that I have no idea what its called

The pikes blocked a large amount of the arrows.

This. Supposedly even Sarissa phalanxes without the hoplon to block with did okay thanks to the ranks of raised pikes deflecting a lot of arrows.

>thinking bows were ever actually deadly to armored opponents
Bows are useless against armor. Sure during antiquity (when phalanxes were prevalent) men were less armored, but a standard bronze breastplate/greaves/helmet could protect a soldier from just about any bow at the time.

Came here to post that

That video is a training video. They would do significantly worse if the crowd was actually trying to hurt them instead of just pushing on them and kicking their shields.

>Just about any bow at the time.
Not really.

Just about any bow in Europe, sure, but not in Asia. The mIssile warfare in Europe was rather primitive and performed roles as skirmishers chycking whatever they could chuck at enemies. As opposed to Asiatics in which they deployed in dense formations akin to the battle lines of their melee counterparts. To say nothing of mounted archery.

The Diadochoi ended up employing shitloads of Asiatic archers themselves, and so did the Romans. By the end of the Roman Empire and the start of the Dark Ages in Europe, bow improvements from the Asiatics made archers in the European continent a viable force.

Addenundum: Not every hoplite had the full panoply.

The poorfags kit consists of the shield, the spear, a very simple helmet, and greaves. The body armor was pretty fucking expensive so most of the poorer hoplites gimped on that.

Nah senpai greaves were more expensive, the thorax was made of leather. Pretty cheap in athens.

Not everyone is Athens.

And leather is shit at the kind of damage a composite recurve bow dealt.

True but leather is definelty cheaper than bronze.Bruh you got a shield to protect you mostly and there are tons of videos on youtube showing how boiled leather can take lots of hits. The arrows stay in the thorax like a hedgehog

How much discipline do you need to be one of those front pikemen. Fugg

Any idea why the poorfags didn't use cotton soaked in saltwater like the aztecs?

Phalanx is a tactic at best, and practically it is a formation, faggot.
Strategy typically deals with logistics, maneuvering, and longterm battle plans.

Please stop with these threads.

Isn't cotton a new world plant or at least not easy to find in Greece?

Cotton was probably rarer and more expensive than bronze at that time. It was considered a luxury good until well into the modern era in Europe.

The Carthaginian cavalry were far superior to their Roman counterparts, in quality and numbers.
If youre going to point out anything risky with the plan it would be the fact that had the Romans punched through the Punic center through weight of numbers the entire army would have been routed.

Fertile land for growing things was mostly reserved for food crops, which many battles were fought over

>muh cannae
>hannibal failed to see his own tactics used against him at Zama

Autism

testudo is a siege formation

That's M&B

are those supposed to be Loricas

Hannibal counted on the quality of his troops mostly.

he had the wild Gauls in the middle to get chewed up by the Romans because he knew they would fight like crazy no matter what, he put his heavy spearmen and more professional warriors to do the flanking, and he trusted the numidians to win thanks to their skirmisher tactics, as well as the Iberians being more numerous and powerful than the Romans.

The entirety of Operation Bagration.

How do I get good at total war?

PartyElite

Hammer and anvil, boyfucker. Make Alex proud.

>barbarians BTFO

>when photobashers are at work
Lmao, those fucking polish hacks

Reddit

gotta have acess to the boipucci after a sweaty battle

Lu bu hates strategy

I disagree, generals like Alexander and Hannibal followed the rules you mention, but they also found ways to break the rules.