Name a war which was won by strategic genius and not logistics or else I will roll this cat over

Almost all the Russo-Turkish Wars.
What a fat cat though.

Keep in mind that Cortez himself did not actually know the smallpox was going to happen. He was just retreating to regroup and resupply.

>retreating
Daily excursions onto the causeways for months during the siege and aggressive raids on Aztec supply lines isn't what I'd call "retreating".

the punic wars

Persian War

I can think of battles, but wars is a bit tougher.
I was thinking Carolus Rex, but he lost at the end.

The Hussite Wars

I'm talking about the period between La Noche Triste, and the siege.

roll it over.
you don't have the balls

Conquests of Alexander the Great

chibi 208/9 AD?

Boxer Rebellion

See: Siege of the International Legations

forgot OP said wars and not battles

test

>Boxer War
>strategic genius
Uh, no. Qing incompetence and Boxer ignorance. The Eight Nation Alliance blundered their way to relieving the legations.

The American war of independence.

the relief expeditions were blunder after blunder for sure but the besieged did a damn good job with the few men they had defending against a much larger force

But I WANT you to roll that cat over, you damn fool

Except the legation was only under siege. The Boxers made little to no major attempts to actually storm the legations. All the legations had to do was sit and wait.

Logistics is strategy you fag.

they most certainly would have stormed the legations if they had the chance

The Americans strategically were idiots. They were just tenacious idiots and Britain finally decided they had better things to do.

Also Genghis Khan.

I don't care. Post fat cats.

>Their strategy worked but I didn't like it so it sucks

kitty is healthy weight

>strategic genius
>implying his or your opinion makes it any less retarded, despite it succeeding

Retard.

Also, anything with Based Suvorov.

"no"

The 6 days war. Logistics doesn't come into play in such a short time.

>if they had the chance
They had weeks to do so, but they didn't.

>They had weeks to do so, but they didn't.
...because they were kept at bay by the defenders
you really think the bloodthirsty boxers who were more than happy to slaughter civilians foreign and chinese alike wouldn't have happily rushed in and murdered everyone in the legations if they thought they could do so without risking large casualties?

>...because they were kept at bay by the defenders
Except primary source accounts from inside the legations show that the watches rarely acted and barely even had to keep watch because they were hardly ever under attack and never under attack by a sizeable force. They were locked in and that was about the extent of the legation siege. It was only once Beijing was attacked by Gaselee's expedition that the Boxers attempted to get in and they did so by burning down part of the legation. Let me repeat that: the one time they actually tried to assault the legation, they actually got in and were repelled because Gaselee's expedition entered the city. The legation guards did not hold out due to strategic genius. They did so because the Qing were fucking incompetent and the Boxers were ignorant.

>if they thought they could do so without risking large casualties
The Boxers did not give any fucks about casualties. They happily charged expedition units with fucking farm tools.

>Except primary source accounts from inside the legations show that the watches rarely acted and barely even had to keep watch because they were hardly ever under attack and never under attack by a sizeable force.
Objectively untrue. I'm not sure what accounts you think you read, because the real ones mention how they were under fire day and night and the defenders never stopped skirmishing with the besiegers except during a few short truces. Putting aside the legations themselves, the Peitang cathedral was continuously assaulted by the Qing and Boxers alike and only barely managed to hold out. The only reason the legations held on is because of Qing half-heartedness (much more than incompetence) and Boxer unwillingness to risk their hides.
>The Boxers did not give any fucks about casualties. They happily charged expedition units with fucking farm tools.
...Because they thought they were immune to bullets. When this notion was rudely dispelled, they became quite a bit more careful.

[Citation Needed]

I'll retort with my source: The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China by David Silbey. The author is a Harvard history professor and a military historian.

Either way, you already conceded that it wasn't strategic genius at all so you might as well fuck off.

La más grande de las CRUZADAS en la que los valientes CASTELLANOS destrozaron y humillaron al maligno imperio Almohade

The Boxer Rebellion by Henry Keown-Boyd and The Spirit Soldiers; a Historical Narrative of the Boxer Rebellion by Richard O'Connor both corroborate my narrative, and while I haven't read Silbey's book I would assume it says the same thing and you're just full of shit.

>Either way, you already conceded that it wasn't strategic genius at all so you might as well fuck off.
Even accounting for the factors of Qing halfheartedness and incompetence, they still vastly outnumbered the legation defenders. I would say their survival relied as much on their own strategic prowess as it did outside factors. So eat shit, faggot.

>a Historical Narrative
Fucking dropped

So you have outdated books and even after admitting you were fucking wrong, you resort to ad hom on top of it. Cuck.

>outdated
yeah i'm sure those events that happened in 1899 were radically different in 1973 than they were in 2013
how much of a pathetic joke can one man be?

>being this ignorant of historiography
You keep shooting yourself in the foot here.

Boudicca got fucked up so bad women still haven't recovered from that shit.

>being this ignorant of historiography
You're the ignorant one, and it shows. You think Silbey, likely using the same exact primary accounts as Boyd and O'Connor, deserves more credit just because he's a newer author? No.

Except Silbey openly states to using primary sources that were recently uncovered when his book was written. Keep being retarded. You are not helping your case at all.

The Gombe chimpanzee war. Also the Emu war, as humans had much, much better logistics.

No amount of recently uncovered sources could change the narrative as much as you're claiming, so once again, you're full of shit.

>No amount of recently uncovered sources could change the narrative as much as you're claiming
A single document can change a narrative. Also narrative history is just as much of a crock of shit as you are.

Turkish War of Independence

>Also narrative history is just as much of a crock of shit as you are.
Even just looking purely at a list of casualties shows your claims are utterly ludicrous. I honestly cannot fathom where the fuck you got these terrible ideas in your head from.

>Even just looking purely at a list of casualties shows your claims are utterly ludicrous
The list of casualties for the entire fucking war? Fucking brilliant.

>The list of casualties for the entire fucking war?
Just for the legations will do, you purposefully obtuse imbecile.

Emus had better logistics. They supply lines were literally interruptible.

>55 killed out of 409
Wew lad, that's some serious casualties from some serious skirmishing. Straight strategic fucking genius right there.

to be fair, Hussites mostly just circled the wagons
I wonder if that's where John Wayne got the idea...

How long was the siege at the legations, again? Surely it was such a long period that they weren't, say, losing about one person per day. Goes to show for sure that it was such an easy siege they weren't even posting fucking guards and that one person per day must have just fell and died for no reason.

>1 person per day in a GREAT STRATEGIC VENTURE during which MUCH BATTLE took place even though most casualties were taken on the final day of the siege
Yeah, nah. You are fucking stupid.

>they weren't even posting fucking guards
No one claimed this. The need to post a watch and actually having a watch are two different things entirely, you strawman-building cuck.

I just noticed that you only included killed. Including the wounded, we're actually looking at around 200 casaulties (even more including Peitang Cathedral). So with this revised figure, why don't you tell me how around four people being taken out of the fight every day goes to show just how peaceful and easy of a siege it was.
You literally have no idea what you're going on about, and it's pathetic to watch. Some days were more peaceful than others, and there were some short truces interspersed throughout the siege, but by and large the legations were under consistent threat, and especially atop the walls there was consistent combat going on.
By the way, you know how I know you literally have zero idea what you're talking about in this argument? You haven't even cited one of the several prominent strategic gaffes the defenders made. So feel free to fuck off and let the big boys go back to talking.

>and there were some short truces interspersed throughout the siege
Not him, but your short truce lasted over half of the siege.

>The Swedish campaign in the 30 years war
>French revolutionary wars
>The wars of Austrian succession by Frederik II
>The peloponnesian wars
>The greco-persian wars
>the russo-japanese war (can't say Japan didn't suffer alot in the war but in the end they won thanks to a superior strategy)

>Strategic genius can be judged by something other than strategic success.

The italian wars, the first at least.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

I kinda want to see that cat rolled over.

Webm please

Sir, step away from the feline.