war strategies
- Thread starter MT420MT
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Messages
- 30,564
- Reaction score
- 1,890
Who would win between Sun-Tzu versus Miyamoto Musashi? Winner takes on Julius Caesar. 
pistachio22
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 0
1-on-1 Miyamoto Musashi would clean up. But for strategy & war mongering Sun-Tzu would clear the battle field.
I'm not sure i agree with your choice of Julius Ceasar as champ, his strategy was great but would he been so great without the Roman technology?
I recommend Genghis Khan for natural talent & sheer efficiency at whooping ass.
I'm not sure i agree with your choice of Julius Ceasar as champ, his strategy was great but would he been so great without the Roman technology?
I recommend Genghis Khan for natural talent & sheer efficiency at whooping ass.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Messages
- 30,564
- Reaction score
- 1,890
Then Sun-tzu versus Hannibal.
pistachio22
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 0
oooh Hannibul good choice 
I see your Hannibul & raise you . . . Qin Shi Huang, the first man to control all China, this guy was unscrupulous in his desire to conquer, even killing his own family.
I see your Hannibul & raise you . . . Qin Shi Huang, the first man to control all China, this guy was unscrupulous in his desire to conquer, even killing his own family.
P
PT447
Guest
we should organize a forum wide game of risk!
pistachio22
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 0
personally i prefer Total War.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 53,018
- Reaction score
- 29,707
That's a great idea PT. Maybe I'll organize it in some way like the Boxing forum does fantasy fights.
I back Qin Shi, that man was a Military Mastermind. Defeating Chinese Warlords and Mongolians alike is no easy task. However his madness would eventually set-in from taking so much mercury, so he's not one for Endurance.
Sun Tzu to me would overcome in the long-run because he'd sustain his forces by attacking enemy supply-lines and feeding his troops at his enemy's expense. Plus, he knows when and when not to attack, as well as how to get his community rallied behind him. As a Salty War Dog these are invaluable assets. Plus, in formal meetings he sounded like the type who would have ended up hiring Musashi to General a portion of his forces.
Which reminds me. Tokugawa is another sound strategist. His greatest feat IMO was both fortifying his rule and making his enemies obsolete by hiring the Ninja to protect him.
However I think a Dark Horse is Alexander The Great. In terms of good out-of-the-gate it doesn't get much better than that kid. Though much like Qin, I question his endurance for the long-term.
I back Qin Shi, that man was a Military Mastermind. Defeating Chinese Warlords and Mongolians alike is no easy task. However his madness would eventually set-in from taking so much mercury, so he's not one for Endurance.
Sun Tzu to me would overcome in the long-run because he'd sustain his forces by attacking enemy supply-lines and feeding his troops at his enemy's expense. Plus, he knows when and when not to attack, as well as how to get his community rallied behind him. As a Salty War Dog these are invaluable assets. Plus, in formal meetings he sounded like the type who would have ended up hiring Musashi to General a portion of his forces.
Which reminds me. Tokugawa is another sound strategist. His greatest feat IMO was both fortifying his rule and making his enemies obsolete by hiring the Ninja to protect him.
However I think a Dark Horse is Alexander The Great. In terms of good out-of-the-gate it doesn't get much better than that kid. Though much like Qin, I question his endurance for the long-term.
CowboyPete
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 0
What about "The Kid from the Dark Continent" Shaka Zulu? He's been on a tear lately since he added a couple techniques to his tribe's traditional war tactics. The bigger shield and the short spear have been doing wonders, especially combined with the three prong attack. I'm not saying he's on Sun Tsu's level or anything but he shows some real promise, especially fighting out of his "weight class" like he's been doing. Give him a couple more years and he'll be a force.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 53,018
- Reaction score
- 29,707
lol That post his hilarious for SO many reasons.
Speaking of the Dark Continent though, I'm sure there are some Pharoahs of Egypt that should be in contention. I mean Hell they earned enough status from the Roman Empire to have ambassadors of color within the high-ranks of Roman rule. There's gotta be something to be said for being able to break the color barriers even back then.
Speaking of the Dark Continent though, I'm sure there are some Pharoahs of Egypt that should be in contention. I mean Hell they earned enough status from the Roman Empire to have ambassadors of color within the high-ranks of Roman rule. There's gotta be something to be said for being able to break the color barriers even back then.
CowboyPete
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 0
Well the color barriers weren't as thick as they are now. Back then, it was more about where you were from than what you actually looked like. The Romans definitely hated the "barbarians," the Northern Germanic tribes more than they hated the Egyptians or the Chinese.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 53,018
- Reaction score
- 29,707
I can see that, but I do think they still viewed them as inferior in many ways. I just think because of the certain events in History people think color barriers were a lot more sensitive than they were. Half of these guys behind closed-doors had relations with not only other races, but specifically coveted the daughters of the lands they conquered. Favor of women being one of the more prominent motivators of a lot of these guys when push came to shove.
Speaking of the Barbarians though, any of them stand out particularly?
Oh and I also nominate Tecumseh, whose main effort on behalf of the Shawnee was to unify the more powerful tribes agains the invading Europeans. Had he been successful (failing because of his brother Tippecanoe) in this mission, we might be living in a VERY different America today. Also for being a Native to receive the rank of Brigadier General recognized by British Military.
Now Cowboy, don't go gettin' all crazy on me for nominating a fellow Injun. lol
Speaking of the Barbarians though, any of them stand out particularly?
Oh and I also nominate Tecumseh, whose main effort on behalf of the Shawnee was to unify the more powerful tribes agains the invading Europeans. Had he been successful (failing because of his brother Tippecanoe) in this mission, we might be living in a VERY different America today. Also for being a Native to receive the rank of Brigadier General recognized by British Military.
Now Cowboy, don't go gettin' all crazy on me for nominating a fellow Injun. lol
deadlyshaolin
euphoria
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,776
- Reaction score
- 1
If you're interested in military tactics AND MMA, do check out this page:
http://www.xanga.com/malechi
I found it recently and as impressed by its content. Here's an example of what you'll find there:
MMA, Warfare: "Hey you can't do that!"
The smarter and more flexible unit is the one who wins.
Whether in Fighting or in Warfare or in daily competition, the unit (man, squad, army, team, corporation, etc.) which can think unconventionally and can act unbound from the set rules of warfare is the one that will be victorious. The very idea of rules of warfare is illusory. We create rules because we believe we are bound to behaving a certain way and are limited to a certain set of actions. Being bound by these rules is the surest path to defeat.
The only time rules in warfare are good is when the rule is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. When the rule is no longer beneficial to one or more party, all other parties are at a disadvantage if they remain bound by those rules.
Every year in Japan, NHK releases a new Taiga Drama. These are among my favorite series runs to watch. They run for fifty episodes of one hour each, and detail the struggles of Medieval Japan (most of them taking place in the Sengoku Jidai period) both on a personal level among characters and on a strategic level with clans battling each other for control of the land and its resources.
This year's NHK Drama 2006 is called "Komyo ga Tsuji", and is slightly different from the previous years' Taiga Dramas in that it follows the story of a husband and wife from their days as poor, low-level Samurai through the Sengoku Jidai, through his fealties to three successive Daimyo (Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu -- who ultimately united Japan). I recorded the premiere episode last night and watched it, and a scene where they detailed Oda Nobunaga's assault on Imagawa Yoshimoto's army at the battle of Okehazama in 1560.
Okehazama is noteworthy to me because Oda Nobunaga was heavily outnumbered (the numbers are unclear but could be as much as 20 to 1) by Imagawa Yoshimoto but by being flexible, by knowing his enemy, and by taking advantage of breaking a set rule of warfare, Oda Nobunaga destroyed the Imagawa army and set them into flight for the rest of the civil war.
At Okehazama, Oda Nobunaga stockpiled three years of supplies in his main castle, prepared it for seige, and when the Imagawa army advanced into his land, he allowed two of his forward fortresses to fall unopposed by his main army. Oda then allowed Imagawa to feel confident that he was locking himself into his main castle, had villagers offer Imagawa food and drink to have a party and deceived him into a state of contentment on a hill near Okehazama. As the Imagawa army celebrated a pre-victory party, out of their armor and away from their weapons, the Oda army mounted a suprise attack under the cover of rain to mask the sound of their approaching Heavy Cavalry.
"Hey, you can't do that!"
Oda deceived Imagawa into a false sense of victory, drawing him into his territory where he could lay a trap. Oda then used the environment which he had superior knowledge of to attack Imagawa without Imagawa realizing Oda was approaching. Oda attacked Imagawa in a surprise attack (warriors of the time would call it dishonorable) while Imagawa was unarmed and unarmored and unprepared for battle.
The end result was that Oda defeated the Imagawa army of ten times his number, killed Imagawa Yoshimoto, and set the Imagawa to its demise. Imagawa, set in his mind that everybody was bound to the same rules of warfare, allowed Oda to attack him unprepared and was defeated.
This is just another example of using an opponent's belief that all parties are bound to the same rules of warfare to defeat him. In human history, it has happened time and time over.
"Damn, Batukhan.
I can't believe they keep falling for that."
When the Golden Horde attacked Europe in the 1300's, they would ride forward and entice the European Knights to charge and then feint a retreat while firing their compound bows over their shoulders -- cutting the Knights to pieces. The Knights only knew and were bound by their rules of warfare and Europe would have fallen completely if Ghengis Khan had not died, causing the Golden Horde to follow custom and return to their capital.
"Dishonorable? Moi?
But who's using your flag as toilet paper?"
When Wellington fought Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Wellington broke with the rules of warfare and refused to stand his men in a line against Napoleon's army. Rules of warfare (as well as the idea of honor) at the time dictated that men stand shoulder to shoulder in the open and exchange volleys until the lines broke and a bayonet charge was ordered. Instead, Wellington, ountumbered by a few but immensely outclassed by Napoleon's veteran army and his superiority in artillery, ordered his men behind the low hills to conceal his army's movements and provide protection against French artillery. With Napoleon not truly knowing Wellington's battle lines, he could not mount an effective offense because he never knew if he was about to order his Old Guard over a hill and find them staring into ten-thousand rifles.
Jihad? Jihadoe? It's just a matter of semantics.
When Al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001... they too chose to take advantage of the United States believing that they were untouchable in war and that all parties followed the same rules of warfare. The western world calls it "Terror". The Islamic world calls it "Jihad". This is a matter of semantics that mean "War."
The United States was blindsided because they didn't think an attack could come in the form of hijacked airliners against civilian targets because the United States believed that warring factions should play fair -- if the United States would not conduct such an attack, nobody else would.
The saddest thing about this is that the United States has already been struck this way, but is still not preparing an adequate defensive strategy toward this new form of warfare. Al-Qaeda will strike again and again until the United States realizes that they are fighting bound.
Rome and its modern equal.
In the year 9 (yes, 9AD), Germanic tribes under Varus heavily outclassed and outnumbered by the Roman war machine completely annihilated three Roman legions (17th, 18th, 19th Legions) in the Teutoburg forest under Publius Quintilius. The Romans believed they were invincible, and in fact they were practically invincible in formal, conventional warfare (much as the United States is today). Varus lured the Roman Legions (totalling about 30,000 to 40,000 into the Teutoburg forest knowing they would spread out into a thin line -- and then attacked at the most vulnerable points. The Romans, who could not be defeated when fighting in on open ground or in formal warfare, were cut to pieces by Germanic warriors attacking out of the cover of the forest from both sides of the Roman line.
History, time and time again has shown that the mighty falls when they are bound by conventional thinking and by rules of warfare that they believe every party is bound to... when in fact, the rule is nothing but illusion and conventional thinking is nothing but a limit to the strategy of war and the tactics of the fight.
Lesson:
Know your enemy, decieve your enemy, be flexible to your enemy, escape from the bounds of conventional thinking... and you will destroy your enemy.
http://www.xanga.com/malechi
I found it recently and as impressed by its content. Here's an example of what you'll find there:
MMA, Warfare: "Hey you can't do that!"
The smarter and more flexible unit is the one who wins.
Whether in Fighting or in Warfare or in daily competition, the unit (man, squad, army, team, corporation, etc.) which can think unconventionally and can act unbound from the set rules of warfare is the one that will be victorious. The very idea of rules of warfare is illusory. We create rules because we believe we are bound to behaving a certain way and are limited to a certain set of actions. Being bound by these rules is the surest path to defeat.
The only time rules in warfare are good is when the rule is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. When the rule is no longer beneficial to one or more party, all other parties are at a disadvantage if they remain bound by those rules.
Every year in Japan, NHK releases a new Taiga Drama. These are among my favorite series runs to watch. They run for fifty episodes of one hour each, and detail the struggles of Medieval Japan (most of them taking place in the Sengoku Jidai period) both on a personal level among characters and on a strategic level with clans battling each other for control of the land and its resources.
This year's NHK Drama 2006 is called "Komyo ga Tsuji", and is slightly different from the previous years' Taiga Dramas in that it follows the story of a husband and wife from their days as poor, low-level Samurai through the Sengoku Jidai, through his fealties to three successive Daimyo (Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu -- who ultimately united Japan). I recorded the premiere episode last night and watched it, and a scene where they detailed Oda Nobunaga's assault on Imagawa Yoshimoto's army at the battle of Okehazama in 1560.
Okehazama is noteworthy to me because Oda Nobunaga was heavily outnumbered (the numbers are unclear but could be as much as 20 to 1) by Imagawa Yoshimoto but by being flexible, by knowing his enemy, and by taking advantage of breaking a set rule of warfare, Oda Nobunaga destroyed the Imagawa army and set them into flight for the rest of the civil war.
At Okehazama, Oda Nobunaga stockpiled three years of supplies in his main castle, prepared it for seige, and when the Imagawa army advanced into his land, he allowed two of his forward fortresses to fall unopposed by his main army. Oda then allowed Imagawa to feel confident that he was locking himself into his main castle, had villagers offer Imagawa food and drink to have a party and deceived him into a state of contentment on a hill near Okehazama. As the Imagawa army celebrated a pre-victory party, out of their armor and away from their weapons, the Oda army mounted a suprise attack under the cover of rain to mask the sound of their approaching Heavy Cavalry.
"Hey, you can't do that!"
Oda deceived Imagawa into a false sense of victory, drawing him into his territory where he could lay a trap. Oda then used the environment which he had superior knowledge of to attack Imagawa without Imagawa realizing Oda was approaching. Oda attacked Imagawa in a surprise attack (warriors of the time would call it dishonorable) while Imagawa was unarmed and unarmored and unprepared for battle.
The end result was that Oda defeated the Imagawa army of ten times his number, killed Imagawa Yoshimoto, and set the Imagawa to its demise. Imagawa, set in his mind that everybody was bound to the same rules of warfare, allowed Oda to attack him unprepared and was defeated.
This is just another example of using an opponent's belief that all parties are bound to the same rules of warfare to defeat him. In human history, it has happened time and time over.
"Damn, Batukhan.
I can't believe they keep falling for that."
When the Golden Horde attacked Europe in the 1300's, they would ride forward and entice the European Knights to charge and then feint a retreat while firing their compound bows over their shoulders -- cutting the Knights to pieces. The Knights only knew and were bound by their rules of warfare and Europe would have fallen completely if Ghengis Khan had not died, causing the Golden Horde to follow custom and return to their capital.
"Dishonorable? Moi?
But who's using your flag as toilet paper?"
When Wellington fought Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Wellington broke with the rules of warfare and refused to stand his men in a line against Napoleon's army. Rules of warfare (as well as the idea of honor) at the time dictated that men stand shoulder to shoulder in the open and exchange volleys until the lines broke and a bayonet charge was ordered. Instead, Wellington, ountumbered by a few but immensely outclassed by Napoleon's veteran army and his superiority in artillery, ordered his men behind the low hills to conceal his army's movements and provide protection against French artillery. With Napoleon not truly knowing Wellington's battle lines, he could not mount an effective offense because he never knew if he was about to order his Old Guard over a hill and find them staring into ten-thousand rifles.
Jihad? Jihadoe? It's just a matter of semantics.
When Al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001... they too chose to take advantage of the United States believing that they were untouchable in war and that all parties followed the same rules of warfare. The western world calls it "Terror". The Islamic world calls it "Jihad". This is a matter of semantics that mean "War."
The United States was blindsided because they didn't think an attack could come in the form of hijacked airliners against civilian targets because the United States believed that warring factions should play fair -- if the United States would not conduct such an attack, nobody else would.
The saddest thing about this is that the United States has already been struck this way, but is still not preparing an adequate defensive strategy toward this new form of warfare. Al-Qaeda will strike again and again until the United States realizes that they are fighting bound.
Rome and its modern equal.
In the year 9 (yes, 9AD), Germanic tribes under Varus heavily outclassed and outnumbered by the Roman war machine completely annihilated three Roman legions (17th, 18th, 19th Legions) in the Teutoburg forest under Publius Quintilius. The Romans believed they were invincible, and in fact they were practically invincible in formal, conventional warfare (much as the United States is today). Varus lured the Roman Legions (totalling about 30,000 to 40,000 into the Teutoburg forest knowing they would spread out into a thin line -- and then attacked at the most vulnerable points. The Romans, who could not be defeated when fighting in on open ground or in formal warfare, were cut to pieces by Germanic warriors attacking out of the cover of the forest from both sides of the Roman line.
History, time and time again has shown that the mighty falls when they are bound by conventional thinking and by rules of warfare that they believe every party is bound to... when in fact, the rule is nothing but illusion and conventional thinking is nothing but a limit to the strategy of war and the tactics of the fight.
Lesson:
Know your enemy, decieve your enemy, be flexible to your enemy, escape from the bounds of conventional thinking... and you will destroy your enemy.
CowboyPete
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 0
King Kabuki said:
TAAAAAAAAAAAAARNATION!
King Kabuki said:
Atilla the Hun stands out pretty strongly. Of course, he did go up against the eastern roman empire after they split and became crappy. He's sorta a champ built up fighting "cans."
CowboyPete
Green Belt
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 0
Well if you're talking about the Vikings, I'd have to say that Odin and Thor definitely qualify. These Norse gods are actually based on a real man and his son whose lives and accomplishments just got exaggerated further and further over time. I'm not much of a historien so I couldn't really say any specific names for the Germanic barbarians, the Irish or Scottish greats.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 53,018
- Reaction score
- 29,707
I would think homeboy Gibson played in Braveheart might qualify, though I think getting inevitably captured and quartered among other things is a Hell of a blemish on one's resume. lol
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 53,018
- Reaction score
- 29,707
Oh, on a sidenote I also think Guan Yu of China should get nominated. Any man who can kill your horse, kill you, and like 5-10 of any of your battallion who attempt to come to your aid gets a thumbs up in my book.
And I think the dude who invented the Jo (short staff - Japanese) should be considered, even if it's only myth or legend that he defeated Musashi, such a thing being accredited to someone is at-least deserving of honorable mention.
And I think the dude who invented the Jo (short staff - Japanese) should be considered, even if it's only myth or legend that he defeated Musashi, such a thing being accredited to someone is at-least deserving of honorable mention.
