Narrator describes tactics

>narrator describes tactics
>he calls it "strategy"


Post your peeves.

>People talking about "logistics" to mean "anything that happens off the battlefield".

>Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war

Is all I ever needed. Also OP it's your own fault if you consume pop-history garbage.

>>narrator describes tactics
>>he calls it "strategy"
whats the difference

not neccessarily because strategy isn't ONLY using battles, it encompassses all aspects of society, especially after WW1. For instance, strategy might involve marriage, diplomacy, infrastructure, etc. People think strategy necessarily requires battle, but battle is only one aspect of strategy.

no fuck off

what is this philosophical horseshit?
>narrator describes tactics
>he calls it "strategy"

what the fuck is he narrating? soap opera?

if you're gonna be dumb it's honestly preferrable that you don't post at all, but hell if you wanna bump this go ahead.

A podcast, a documentary, a youtube video, literally anything.

>not neccessarily because strategy isn't ONLY using battles, it encompassses all aspects of society, especially after WW1. For instance, strategy might involve marriage, diplomacy, infrastructure, etc. People think strategy necessarily requires battle, but battle is only one aspect of strategy.
Nah, I will go with Clausewitz and my professor instead of user :-^^

>complaining about youtube videos instead of reading a book

Your teacher is dumb and didn't think about what he was saying otherwise he would have realized that strategy encompasses more than just battles, otherwise it's barely even worth differentiating it from strategic and operational levels.

I heard the same thing from my professors and they were wrong too and when I went full nerd on his definition he agreed with me. This is a common misconception in academia, and that definition is too simplistic for the very reasons I've stated. If you don't actually know why you believe something, and just believe it based on the faith that someone smarter than you knows what's what, you're the biggest kind of idiot. Professors are not infallible, that definition is not correct. You'd be a shitty strategists if battle was the only thing on your plate.

just keep bumping my thread with retardation then, whatever

the one relevant situation where strategy and tactics aren't just fucking buzzwords is war

strategy is sending units places and letting those below you on the chain of command to do the tactics part, it's the where and when
tactics is commanding units in the field, the how

*tactical and operational

>fails to accuratly describe what he's talking about
>gets snappy and blames the reader for his own poor communication

That emotional tactic is not a good communication strategy.

You're thinking operational, you just described operational.

These posts honestly show exactly what I was talking about in OP, you guys don't know shit.

only an idiot needed clarification, but since this thread is apparently full of retards that makes sense.

>Your teacher is dumb
no you
>otherwise he would have realized that strategy encompasses more than just battles, otherwise it's barely even worth differentiating it from strategic and operational levels.
Thing is you have to say what isn't strategy. And you definition, and it is your cause you pulled it out of your uneducated ass, is way to broad

Also you are huge faggot and you have never even read the standard stuff like Clausewith or Thukydides.

>I am le epic war philosopher and don't need to explain my ad hoc definition
Nice thread you got there farm.

there is no argument in this post. It's just contrarian shitflinging because he's mad that he got called stupid for being stupid.

It's not like you can expand on your point or anything since it's just literally, "my teacher said this and I believe my teacher and my teacher can't be wrong!"

There are three levels: strategic, operational, and tactical, in that order. What you think is strategic is actually operational, what plenty of people think is strategic is actually tactical.

You people STILL don't understand strategy, which is honestly probably not going to change here.

You have no argument, this is adorable.


I'm just gonna let you guys keep digging this hole, let me know when you get all the stupid out.

people who invented modern warfare call shit by those definitions
tactical weapon can be used at field commander's leisure, strategic weapon can be used only with authorization of general staff/president

There is an argument. Look up what the word definition means and try to define what is NOT strategy according to your definition. Also I am done talking to you. I crashed your thread and you are still a virgin who will never actually open a book cause you are busy with "podcasts".

lol you're literally just talking out of your ass aren't you? You're just arbitrarily categorizing them as being "weapons," even though that's not necessarily true, and then randomly differentiating between "tactical" and "strategic" weapons. I was just accused of talking out of my ass, and here I am reading something that smells awfully fecal. Your entire conceptualization of this topic is headcannon and wrong, and anyone with a brain can see that.

>people who invented modern warfare

this statement just oozes stupidity, because obviously you don't know the history

read the fucking OP and maybe use what's left of that brain after years of substance abuse, and try to think about this for a second, my OP provided all the information you need.

Let me use some examples.

I'm fighting a war against china.
My Strategy: turn the people against each other, cause a civil war, conquer the aftermath since the standing army will be weakened and divided from internal strife. Large scale planning, takes place over a period of years, it answers WHY. We're causing a civil war to create instability, we're thinking about human society from all aspects and figuring out, in all conceivable ways (NOT JUST BATTLES) that we can accomplish our goal of defeating China.

Now, my OPERATIONAL strategy would involve where I set up my navy, where the general objectives, cities to take, movements to take. When you see one of those WW11 maps with all the arrows, those are operations. That's the operational level that you THINK is strategic.

My Tactics: this is HOW I will accomplish my objective. It involves exactly what I'm DOING in order to succeed in my operation, which is an operation under the umbrella of my general grand strategy. You could look up my battles after the war, see exactly how the men were deployed, and easily copy. People copied Hannibal's tactics, Caesar's tactics, Alexander's tactics, etc. All of that is tactics. Easy to copy, unlike say "create a civil war in china," which is not something you can easily copy, because tactics is for babbies and strategy is for when you grow up and your brain starts working. It also happens in a single battle in a single area of a gigantic operation which encompasses the general grand strategy, so it is a small scare and a short time frame.

Are you starting to understand why you're retarded? For a complicated topic like strategy describing it and using examples is way more useful than trying to bunch a complicated and specific concept into a single sentence.

>again providing an example instead of a definition
Wanna know I can tell you never set foot in a college?

>you're retarded
>complicated and specific concept into a single sentence.

You know I know more about this than you do, it's obvious that I've been to college, what exactly are you trying to do other than dig that proverbial hole you love digging so much?

So this must be what being utterly correct feels like. It's the only explanation for how pathetic your attempts at refuting me are.

Can we please get back to the thread's main subject? I want to vent, here.

>Professor states that apartheid is over in South Africa
>Annoying student makes correct point that racism is still very apparent in South Africa
>Professor agrees, and amends his statement that the period largely is over
>Student arrogantly argued against him still
>Continues to mutter under her breath, to no one, "correcting" him every time he makes reference to it

>X scientist isn't really that important, because it just would've been invented later

>John Green
>Military history is just listing battles

>History is SOLELY led by social movements
>"Great Men/Women" play no part at all, events would have happened that way regardless if Napoleon or Washington would have been born

>OP is intelligently dropping knowledge
>a bunch of literal retards dragging their feet because he made them realize their own stupidity

Yeah. Uhm you just proved his point that your usage of "strategy" is way to broad by googling it. Way to go.

Yeah no need to explain your reasoning considering you're just a summerfag that doesn't realize he's anonymous, not like you could just close the thread and leave after showing how dumb you are. Oh wait, you totally could. You clearly didn't know fucking anything about the topic before you got offended and are sticking around hoping someone else will validate you. Pure stupidity. Keep making vague, unspecific single-sentence posts claiming victory, it's really intelligent.

same person

Which one is the Chad and which the virgin? Strategists or tacticians?

>World War II class
>terrible death tolls
>every time professor lists some terrible atrocity or deaths, stupid bitch in the back feels the need to inform everyone of her shock
>responds throughout lectures with "Gawd" "geez" "*gasp*"
>hate her

since these betas ITT still don't even understand what strategy is, tactics is definitely for the virgins.

Seriously though strategy has always been held to a higher degree than tactics because you can't just copy strategy, it requires intelligence. It's not something you can "fake" with hard work, you have to be born with a strategic mind. Any retard can copy hannibal's full encirclement, not any retard can recreate Caesar's conquest of Gaul, because the conquest of Gaul was a decade-long strategy.

brainlet. Logistics wins wars.

>not any retard can recreate Caesar's conquest of Gaul, because the conquest of Gaul was a decade-long strategy.
Wrong. And even Caesar says so. Holy fuck man don't try to impress people on Veeky Forums. People here actually read books.

nice argument. I especially like the part where you supported your claim with logic. That example you used in the 4th paragraph was particularly telling, I guess you were right all along, thanks for that extensive essay on my incompetence.

I'm sure you COULD have gone into more detail if you wanted to, but I'm not worth the effort obviously. I feel bad for the user that finally runs into you on the day you actually decide to make a point.

>Provinciae toti quam maximum potest militum numerum imperat (erat omnino in Gallia ulteriore legio una), pontem, qui erat ad Genavam, iubet rescindi. Ubi de eius aventu Helvetii certiores facti sunt, legatos ad eum mittunt nobilissimos civitatis, cuius legationis Nammeius et Verucloetius principem locum obtinebant, qui dicerent sibi esse in animo sine ullo maleficio iter per provinciam facere, propterea quod aliud iter haberent nullum: rogare ut eius voluntate id sibi facere liceat. Caesar, quod memoria tenebat L. Cassium consulem occisum exercitumque eius ab Helvetiis pulsum et sub iugum missum, concedendum non putabat; neque homines inimico animo, data facultate per provinciam itineris faciundi, temperaturos ab iniuria et maleficio existimabat (BG I, 7)
His own account. No plan but a call to action by the circumstances and dickish Gauls.

How about you quote me the BG and show me where there is proof for Caesars plan, now?

>Gaul was a decade-long strategy.
>57 BC-52 BC

>The only good argument is a LONG argument.
More evidence for 'user has never gone to college' piles up.

is this a fucking joke? He even quoted it in latin so he'd look smarter, that's fucking adorable.

You realize Caesar's diary is propaganda, correct? You realize that having an excuse to invade doesn't mean you don't have a strategy? What are you even trying to prove, that the conquest of gaul wasn't a strategy? What kind of dumbfuck nonsense are you even trying to say? I'm not sure you even know, you're certainly not making the connections yourself and leaving me to put the pieces together. Everyone fucking ever who has ever invaded anything had a pretense, this doesn't mean he's going in there blind without a strategy, are you actually retarded? I was just calling you stupid but I'm starting to think you actually have issues. You want me to prove that Caesar was a strategist? The proof is in the pudding, you don't succeed as a consul without being a good strategist, being in his position means being a strategist by default. A good strategist wins, a bad one loses. You don't have a fucking argument, this is the most frustrating conversation I've ever had. Just admit you're wrong for fuck's sake, how long are you gonna keep spewing utter nonsense?

It actually lasted until 50BC, 8 years, which is only two years off the mark. When people describe these wars, they describe it as a decade of conflict because there was buildup and fallout that fills it out. This is PURE semantics, you're literally scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Congratulations, you're the dumbest people I've ever met on this website. Must be summer.

I quoted in Latin cause I don't know which translation you are using since the one my university used when I was studying was in French.
>You realize Caesar's diary is propaganda, correct?
It was written by him in defense of him. Let's talk sources. I stated my claim and my source. Now you go and source your claim.

You're so fucking stupid. You think having a pretense means you don't have a strategy. On top of that, you ACTUALLY BELIEVE Caesar's diary wasn't propaganda. In other words, YOU ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO TAKE ANCIENT PROPAGANDA AT FACE VALUE.

You didn't make a claim, you quoted a source that didn't prove any points whatsoever other than further showing how you're literally the dumbest person I've ever met on this website. That is fucking saying something too, I have had some dumb conversations with some dumb fucking people, but you. God damn, you.

>Caesar is a good strategist because he won and you cannot win without being good at strategy.
Which class did you go to that taught the circular method of argument? I especially like how you claim that all consuls were good strategists by default, since it was an elected position and often won by bribery anyway. Rmemeber those great roman strategists like Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Tiberius Sempronius Longus?

In any event, you have done nothing to prove that Caesar was in fact wrong, other than claiming (based on what?) that it was propaganda. How do you in fact prove that this wasn't what Caesar claimed it to be, a slapped together expedition in defense of some allies, without any real thought of pursuance of longer term goals put into it, and simply reacting to circumstance?

Still no source for your claim that the Gallic War is a decade long strategy (whatever this means). Just autistic screeching at someone who clearly knows more than you.

are you fucking serious? You don't have an argument, that's what my post was trying to say. You know that, you're purposely going off the rails.

You have no source for any of your claims. So far you only posted a google screenshot which seems to be your understanding of "education".

Yes, I do have an argument. It's actually very simple, and was stated in one line.

That argument is "user (you) have never been to college, and that his claims of doing so are false." I have cited to evidence of this fact, namely your poor degree of argumentation and scholarship, which is inconsistent with actual academic training. As a corollary, your inability to realize that you have multiple people responding to you speaks poorly to your overall intelligence, making it unlikely that any university would in fact accept you.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "source" in this context.
>I have cited to evidence
No. You quoted some anecdotal bullshit. This is not sourcing or providing evidence.

>I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "source" in this context.
Are you saying your own posts aren't a source as to your capabilities? In this very thread? Do you get hijacked by mind controlling aliens who force you to write things that you don't in fact mean? Do you have a split personality which doesn't know as much as you do?

Your post only makes sense, amusingly, if you assume that me and everyone else responding in this thread is in fact the same person, which ties into one of my points.

>Which class did you go to that taught the circular method of argument? I especially like how you claim that all consuls were good strategists by default,

I never fucking claimed this, what an OBVIOUS bullshit avoidance of the argument. Semantics GARBAGE is all you have to offer me in the abscence of ANY POINTS WHATSOEVER.

I claimed that a consul that CONQUERED GAUL had to have been a good strategist. That's not the only argument to be made, that's not the limit of my fucking vocabulary, but ITS ENOUGH. It's called fucking logic and reasoning, it's socratic fucking discource you absolute retard. Caesar was a strategist. Are you seriously arguing that Caesar wasn't a strategist, that he didn't have a strategy for fighting the Gauls? I cannot believe I actually even have to argue that. The fact that you're trying to argue this makes you dumb by default before the conversation even starts. Pure stupidty, just pure fucking stupidity stemming from defensiveness after being called dumb for being the dumbfuck that you are.

Idk what you're trying to say my claim was, but yes. Caesar was a strategist. Yes, Caesar had a strategy. Yes, wars, involve strategy. Tell me what you disagree with so I can specify why you are retarded and for what exact belief.

we're having a socratic discourse. Sources aren't necessary even though they totally support my argument, I don't need them because logic dictates I've won this argument already. If Socrates were here he'd be calling you out for your logical fallacies and avoidance of the process.

I don't need to prove anything. The proof is in the pudding, uneducated people do not speech in this fashion.

I asked you how you know that stuff about Caesar. You can't answer this simple question. I can tell you how and why I know what I know. You can't. You are shit at history and thinking in general.

*speak

inb4 hur dur he made a typo he must not be educated

that's not me actually, suprisingly after like a fucking hour someone else in this thread has finally noticed how fucking stupid you are

>we're having a socratic discourse
No, we haven't. You call people stupid when they ask for sources on your claims. Not very socratic.
>Sources aren't necessary
>talk about historical events
>sources aren't necessary
Why didn't you say you are American?

you've gone completely off the rails and are now having a meta discussion about the conversation that you never contributed a point to in the first place. Your existence angers me, I want to literally kill you for being so dumb.

>Semantics GARBAGE
>OP is literally about semantics

when someone cites semantics in that context it references the avoidance of the argument in favor of critiquing how it was structured. What you're doing right now is an example of that so kindly fuck off

Ok. Then let's stop that and you start by sourcing your claim on Caesar.
> Your existence angers me, I want to literally kill you for being so dumb.
Funny. Considering that I got a full scholarship for my PhD in history and enjoying my life I could not care less about you.

>I never fucking claimed this,
>The proof is in the pudding, you don't succeed as a consul without being a good strategist, being in his position means being a strategist by default.

>I claimed that a consul that CONQUERED GAUL had to have been a good strategist.
No, you didn't. You claimed that "A consul is a strategist by default", and that you "don't succeed as a consul without being a good strategist". Those are two distinct claims, neither of which have anything to do with conquering Gaul. For instance, Cinncinatus was most definitely a successful consul, and not a strategist at all. He was yanked out of retirement, made a political set of concessions to stabilize the home front, and led his forces to victory. Nothing about strategy in there.

>Are you seriously arguing that Caesar wasn't a strategist, that he didn't have a strategy for fighting the Gauls?
No, I am arguing that you are a moron and have never been to university, based on how you write and how you reason.

I think you're replying to the wrong user again.

there is absolutely no way this is true. Why are you lying so much on the internet? Nobody with a degree can actually be this retarded, it's impossible.

>my claim on Caesar

what claim? The fact that you keep saying I made a "claim" is proof of the ludicious nonsense that constitutes the words that spew out of your shit-eating mouth. Saying Caesar was a strategist is not a claim, it is a fact. You disagree with this for some absolute retard reason I can't fathom, but I don't care because it's not like you'll explain yourself outside of a quote that had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about, which was further proof of your stupidity.

...

>cinncinatus was not a stragetist at all

Imagine being this fucking dumb. Cinncinatus was indeed a strategist, but it's understandable that you don't understand this considering you can't contemplate strategy beyond battle, which is what started this converasation in the first place, but I suppose it all makes sense. If you can't see the strategy, you've proven my point entirely.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, we can't discuss strategy because you don't even know it when you see it, the foundation of your argument is sand.

A consul is a strategist by default. The consul is in charge of the army. It is HIS DUTY to develop a strategy for the state, THATS WHY YOU ARE ELECTED CONSUL. You could be a bad strategist and fuck up, but you're still a strategist because being in that position makes you a strategist by default even if you're not good at it.

I have been to university, but considering I'm not going to post personal information in order to prove a point, I'm just gonna let you have that one. It's the one thing you've said that isn't utterly ridiculous. Not because it's true-I obviously went to college-but because I cannot immediately explain why it's stupid like I can with everything else you've said ITT

I actually knew that he wasn't a consul when he started, it's part of what makes it so impressive. I just forgot. It doesn't change my argument, it's just semantics. Completely irrelevant really, but it's anecdotal shit so it lines up with the rest of what you've posted

>there is absolutely no way this is true.
It is tho. Deal with it. Tomorrow I am back in the archives reading.

idk what they're teaching you but it's nothing that would actually be useful in real life. I know this because I've just spent an hour with you and you're completely insufferable and hopelessly dumb. College can't fix stupid

They are teaching history. I don't teach shit posting, making up stuff and screaming at people so I get why you might be confused.

I still wanna know where you read that thing about Caesar. This doesn't even have anything to do with history. Just evidence based science (we in the business call it "empiricism").

>hur dur I went to college for 4 years and I don't know strategy when I see it


This is actually part of the point I made earlier:
>it requires intelligence. It's not something you can "fake" with hard work, you have to be born with a strategic mind.

You do not have a strategic mind. No matter how long you go to school you'll never develop that because it's an innate talent. That's why you can't see it, that's why you don't understand it, that's why you can't contemplate the strategy of Cinncinatus, it's why you don't see the strategy in Gaul, it's why you can't differentiate between these concepts.

>post is about Caeasr asking for a source
>you keep screaming and start talking about Cinncinatus
I didn't even use the word "strategy" for quite a while. I just wanna know what your sources on these people are. Also I must tell you that I am able to read you post for anything resembling a proper response to me. If you start ranting, I just filter that out. That's one of the soft skills you acquire reading 100s of pages each day while studying: Look for the stuff that matters. Most of what you say just doesn't.

This conversation doesn't require sources, we're literally talking about words and what they mean. I guess a dictionary but really? The only "source" mentioned here is Caesar's Diary, so we've both gotten our information from the same place, translations aside.

Most of what I say doesn't matter? NOTHING you say matters, because you're still rambling about sources like some sort of generic response to any post you don't like even when it's completely irrelevant.


My source is my brain, which is far more strategically capable than yours considering I actually know it when I see it.

>The only "source" mentioned here is Caesar's Diary
Which clearly contradicts your statement.

>My source is my brain
>and youtube videos
>and podcasts
>no books tho
Pic related.

>Cinncinatus was indeed a strategist, but it's understandable that you don't understand this considering you can't contemplate strategy beyond battle, which is what started this converasation in the first place, but I suppose it all makes sense. If you can't see the strategy, you've proven my point entirely.
Cincinnatus was not a strategist, because he did not formulate strategy, he merely implemented a rather basic strategy that was formulated well before him.

>This is exactly what I'm talking about, we can't discuss strategy because you don't even know it when you see it, the foundation of your argument is sand.
Pot, meet kettle.

>A consul is a strategist by default.
Prove this.

> The consul is in charge of the army.
Already wrong, since there was that whole dual command between the TWO consuls.

>It is HIS DUTY to develop a strategy for the state, THATS WHY YOU ARE ELECTED CONSUL.
This is wrong. Even in wartime, his duty was to command the troops, not necessarily to develop strategy. And of course they had many peacetime duties as well, which is what the vast majority of Roman Consuls spent a lot of time doing. That is not the same thing as developing a strategy, or even implementing a strategy, which you seem blind to the distinction between.


You have once again made a stupid, circular argument. Cincinnatus was a strategist because he was a consul, and consuls are strategists, ergo Cincinnatus was a strategist. Do you not get how stupid this is?

>Still not getting that there is MORE THAN ONE user REPLYING TO YOU.

>implying I am not using this thread to trigger the peasant
>implying I care

it doesn't though, you're just retarded

>no u: the post
You never even read Caesar.

> he did not formulate strategy, he merely implemented a rather basic strategy

thanks for contradicting yourself so I don't have to

>Prove this

It's common knowledge. A general, a consul, a prince, whatever. Anyone in power, anyone with control, they all have a strategy. Even if it's simple, even if they're extremely bad at strategizing, everyone at least has a concept of what they want to do, and that's what strategy is. Having no strategy means that he sat in his chair and did nothing his entire life, it's ridiculous.

>Already wrong, since there was that whole dual command between the TWO consuls.

another irrelevant "gotcha" comment about semantics that is completely irrelevant to the point. The consuls shared power, but they didn't rule at the same time, they took turns. So one person also is at the top on any given day unless they've split themselves into two armies. None of this is relevant to anything though, much like most of your posts.

>Even in wartime, his duty was to command the troops, not necessarily to develop strategy.

The senate appoints consuls because democracy doesn't work in the military. Whoever is at top is setting the strategy, and that is a consul. Caesar is a rare case where someone who wasn't a consul still had power and means, so it's a similar setup anyway.

You have once again not made any arguments worth responding to, have avoided the main point of the thread again, and have once again blabbered on irrelevantly about semantics and other avoidances of the topic.

>circular argument

only because that's how you keep rationalizing this conversation because it's easier for you to attack that strawman. As I've explained, that is not my reasoning in it's entirety, but it is solid reasoning because you cannot be in a position of power without being a strategist, hell you can't even breathe and exist without being a strategist. Everyone is a strategist when it comes to their own life, the only difference is the degree

>loses the argument decisively
>still desparately clinging to this thread shitposting single-sentence posts in order to "get the last word."

Logistics is literally just moving supplies from point A to point B.
Anyone who describes it as anything else is a pseud namedropping shit that they barely even have an understanding of.

>loses the argument decisively
This actually me lol irl especially since you have proven how fucking stupid you are here: >It's common knowledge. A general, a consul, a prince, whatever.
How anyone could no so little but be so full of himself is actually impressive.
>gotcha
Trump voter confirmed.

>this guy actually thinks he responded adequately with 2 and a half sentences to a giant post that tore apart his argument

that's some serious delusion

Someone once said "Brevity is the Soul of Wit." Now my powerful brain tells me, and don't have to look at the sources, cause this is not about history but about real life(!), that it was Bill Cosby so it must be right.

>giant post
>2 lines of greentexting

lol no it's not. It involves those supplies, the source of those supplies, the extent to which that source can supply you, the roads and waterways that connect you to said supplies, how well you protect that supply line, knowing how far and how long you can campaign based on the supplies given, etc. Logistics is the math behind the strategy basically. It can get pretty complicated, just look at WW2. Now that's a logsitical clusterfuck right there.

go ahead and keep having a meta discussion with yourself. I'm happy having torn apart your argument here:
hmm maybe he's talking about the post you totally ignored because you can't respond to it without avoiding the topic and giving me short, concise declarations of victory in it's stead.

>you cannot be in a position of power without being a strategist
I bet now you gonna tell my what giant fucking military master mind Augustus was,

>thanks for contradicting yourself so I don't have to
This is not a contradiction. It is entirely possible to implement a strategy someone else came up with. The person doing the latter is not a strategist.

>It's common knowledge. A general, a consul, a prince, whatever. Anyone in power, anyone with control, they all have a strategy.
You've repeatedly asserted this and not actually demonstrated any of it. Let's apply it to the example. What was Cincinnatus's strategy in regards to the Aequi? How do you know he came up with it, and he wasn't just implementing someone else's?

>Even if it's simple, even if they're extremely bad at strategizing, everyone at least has a concept of what they want to do, and that's what strategy is
No, that is not what strategy is. Strategy is a plan to achieve a goal while dealing with principles of uncertainty. Removing that aspect is a critical flaw.

>Having no strategy means that he sat in his chair and did nothing his entire life, it's ridiculous.
No, having no strategy means that you either don't make any plans beyond what can be demonstrably calculable, or that there is no plan, simply a bunch of reactions to events without any coherent goal or plan in mind.

>The consuls shared power, but they didn't rule at the same time,
Wrong again. Consuls held veto power over each other.

>None of this is relevant to anything though, much like most of your posts.
It is entirely relevant, because you cannot make a plan in the face of uncertainty if you do not control the resources necessary to effect that plan, which the consuls frequently did not do.

>Whoever is at top is setting the strategy, and that is a consul
No, this is wrong. Again. Please note the definition of a strategy, as well as the distinction between creation and implementation of it.

>You have once again not made any arguments worth responding to,
Pot, meet kettle.

Did you seriously just claim that Augustus wasn't a strategist? His strategy for the empire would be THE strategy that the empire took to it's grave. He set the stage for the second half of roman history, only Trajan ever went against the strategy of Augustus. This proves it, you have absolutely no idea what strategy is.

Augustus is actually the perfect example of strategy OUTSIDE of a military context, because a lot of his strategy for the future of the roman empire was ingrained in nonmilitary pursuits. He's the macro master, the guy who saw the future and set up the empire to hold against it. He's a strategist through and through, and he left the tactics to his generals. That's what being a goddamn strategist means.

Anything else or would you like me to continue my 2-3 hour rant on why you're all retarded?

>only because that's how you keep rationalizing this conversation because it's easier for you to attack that strawman.
Again. Pot, meet kettle.

> but it is solid reasoning because you cannot be in a position of power without being a strategist,
Once again, COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG. Hell, you ever hear of something called a hereditary monarchy? Now before you go off about how I'm bringing up tangents, I'm bringing this up to demonstrate how you clearly have ideas in your head, but due to your inability to communicate them clearly, you wind up saying stupid ass shit. Your university, had it actually existed, sure as shit should have purged this stupid-ass trait from you.

>hell you can't even breathe and exist without being a strategist.
Yes, you can. There is no uncertainty, nor planning involved in breathing and existing.

That dude here actually knows about Roman history and totally slaughtered you. Your pathetic attempt here wouldn't have passed in my first B.A. year. You seriously need to consider that you should do some reading. I recommend "The Cambridge Ancient History" for beginners. Take it up from there. If you are "only" in military history English only should be fine. If you are more into early Rome (you talked about Cincinnatur) some Italian or French could be needed on the most recent research but again you should be fine with English (only).

If you still think you don't need any more education you seriously need to introduce yourself to the Dunning–Kruger-Effect. I am off now because I gotta do some actual reading tomorrow. I came to pity you in the last two hours tho. Farewell redneck.

>lol no it's not. It involves those supplies, the source of those supplies, the extent to which that source can supply you, the roads and waterways that connect you to said supplies, how well you protect that supply line, knowing how far and how long you can campaign based on the supplies given, etc.
Right, so moving supplies

>his strategy for the future of the roman empire was ingrained in nonmilitary pursuits
Jesus mate. During Augustus' years there were more border wars than in any time before him. He fucking took 50% of the whole mobile Roman forces across the Rhine for shits and giggles. You seriously need to read a book bro.

>It is entirely possible to implement a strategy someone else came up with. The person doing the latter is not a strategist.

I didn't know you could be this stupid. If you are implementing a strategy, regardless of origins, you are now a strategist. A man performing a strategy. Every strategy starts from somewhere else, nothing is entirely original so you're not making any points here. AGAIN.

>What was Cincinnatus's strategy

His entire life and how he lived it was a strategic move to set a moral standard that his successors would be compared to. It was a strategic move to take power, it was a strategic move to give it up, every step of his life is part of the strategy of his life. You too have a life strategy, and every step you take is in pursuit of it. That's what it means to have a cerebral cortex, you think and then do.

>No, having no strategy means that you either don't make any plans beyond what can be demonstrably calculable, or that there is no plan, simply a bunch of reactions to events without any coherent goal or plan in mind.

If you're not actively planning, then your strategy is to be reactive. Being reactive is still a strategy, even if it's a bad one.

>you cannot make a plan in the face of uncertainty if you do not control the resources necessary to effect that plan

You are always in the face of uncertainly so this entire sentence is redundant as fuck, but whatever. There is never a point where someone is not implementing a strategy, no matter how bad or simple it is. If that strategy is "be a drone and follow this guy's strategy" or "totally don't prepare and tackle everything as it comes," all strategy. All of it, bad and good.

>No, this is wrong. Again. Please note the definition of a strategy, as well as the distinction between creation and implementation of it.

The implementation of strategy is operations, tactics, and social/political maneuvers. Strategy is an idea, it is without limbs on it's own.

Pathetic

and everything involved in that, maintaining roads, building things, etc.

>a lot of his strategy for the future of the roman empire was ingrained in nonmilitary pursuits.
>The wars of Augustus are the military campaigns undertaken by the Roman government during the sole rule of the founder-emperor Augustus (30 BC - AD 14). This was a period of 45 years when almost every year saw major campaigning, in some cases on a scale comparable to the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), when Roman manpower resources were stretched to the limit. The result of these wars was a major expansion of the empire that Augustus inherited from the Roman Republic, although in one case, the German Wars, there was little end-result to show for the enormous deployment of resources involved.

>His entire life and how he lived it was a strategic move to set a moral standard that his successors would be compared to.
I am starting to believe we are getting trolled.

his border wars were in pursuit of stable borders. The entire romans strategy was to create division and stife on their borders so their neighbors would fight each other instead of themselves.

YOU seriously need to APPLY the books you read, because it seems like the words go in one ear and out the other since you cant critically apply anything you learn.

>no argument whatsoever

They were not wars of conquest but rather wars meant to establish borders. It is common knowledge that Augustus established the playbook by which Hadrian and future emperors would build off of. It's all in the history, all those military conflicts don't add up to any meaningful gains in territory.

he shamed his predeccessors and successors into not being tyrants. It worked for a really long time, successful strategy.

>Soldier digs latrine
>Complains about lowly position

Take heart, by digging the latrines you are implementing my strategy, hence you are a noble strategist, too!

you're trying to mock me but that's totally true. Every single individual has a strategy, even if that strategy is "follow this smart guy's strategy."

>his border wars were in pursuit of stable borders>
>this is why he crossed the Rhine
>They were not wars of conquest
The standard work on his wars is literally called "Augustus' Wars of Conquest in Europe: Imperium Sine Fine?". You suck bro and now you are making shit up.

>inb4; HURR THOSE HISTORIANS ARE STOOPID IM SMARTER THAN THEM ALTHOUGH I DONT KNOW THAT A CONSUL DOES OR HOW TO SPEAK LATING IS FOR FAGS

>I didn't know you could be this stupid. If you are implementing a strategy, regardless of origins, you are now a strategist.
No, you are not. If that is the case, than for instance, every single soldier in every campaign ever is a "strategist", since they are all implementing, in some small way, a strategy that they presumably had no part in creating.

>Every strategy starts from somewhere else, nothing is entirely original so you're not making any points here.
That's like saying there's no such thing as an author because every story draws inpsiration from somewhere.

>His entire life and how he lived it was a strategic move to set a moral standard that his successors would be compared to
Prove that. Prove that he was attempting to realize a plan through uncertainty by living a "moral life".

> You too have a life strategy, and every step you take is in pursuit of it. That's what it means to have a cerebral cortex, you think and then do.
That is not what a strategy is.

>If you're not actively planning, then your strategy is to be reactive. Being reactive is still a strategy, even if it's a bad one.
You've missed the point. A plan is not necessarily a strategy.

>You are always in the face of uncertainly
No you are not. For instance, take the following chess position. White can win this, and there is no uncertainty involved; no matter what move black makes, he loses, and this is easily calculable. Thus, there is no strategic action for white at this point, simply implementation and planning.

>There is never a point where someone is not implementing a strategy, no matter how bad or simple it is.
Yes, there is, when there is no plan, or there is no plan that covers the actions taken, or when you have a multitude of actors acting at cross purposes.

>The implementation of strategy is operations, tactics, and social/political maneuvers. Strategy is an idea, it is without limbs on it's own.
You've missed the point. The "guy at the top" is very often not setting strategy, especially military strategy. It is often sub-contracted out, and once again, your assertion that there is "always a strategy" is simply not true.

Is "strategy" becoming the antonym for "spook" ITT or what