Sun Tzu - The Art of War -- War College

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Depends what you mean by compliment. Strategy and tactics are two seperate sections of warfare; you cannot really fight a war without having people good at both.

Technically they are unrelated in a direct sense- but your best strategy is no good if your tactics mean you lose every battle, and the greatest tactican cannot win a war if bad strategy means he is surprised and outnumbered in every fight.

---

Meanwhile, Alexander's use of cavalry was borrowed from a. his people and b. his father. Alexander was a genius precisely because he never over-complicated... something you should learn, RTO. His greateat victories have no complications to them at all.

And Rommel was a great strategist... NOT a great writer. There's something wrong with your brain if you cannot tell all that stuff is dry. It's why you cannot get anyone bothered to read it. Meanwhile, I don't care what you have had enough of- post stuff worth chastising, and it will be chastised. You have neither right nor power to stop that.

Basicly Both are nessasary to be sucessful.

Alexander really didn't have mush of predetermined tactics. He kept his forces fluid and was ready to exploit weakness.
His real mastery was in observation. He could see a slight enemy weakness or soft spot and knew how to use it to his advantage. You couldn't make a single mistake facing him, because he would catch it and make you pay.
Decisive Battles onthe history channel is great for this. Cool show too.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Depends what you mean by compliment. Strategy and tactics are two seperate sections of warfare; you cannot really fight a war without having people good at both.

Technically they are unrelated in a direct sense- but your best strategy is no good if your tactics mean you lose every battle, and the greatest tactican cannot win a war if bad strategy means he is surprised and outnumbered in every fight.

---

Meanwhile, Alexander's use of cavalry was borrowed from a. his people and b. his father. Alexander was a genius precisely because he never over-complicated... something you should learn, RTO. His greateat victories have no complications to them at all.

And Rommel was a great strategist... NOT a great writer. There's something wrong with your brain if you cannot tell all that stuff is dry. It's why you cannot get anyone bothered to read it. Meanwhile, I don't care what you have had enough of- post stuff worth chastising, and it will be chastised. You have neither right nor power to stop that.

If you haven't noticed ... soldiers do not care if you are entertained while they write of war. He is writing about a WWI battle that was in his view very important to note in that adaptaion of new tactics that he would revolutionize later with the combined arms doctrine were infantry airpower and armor all compliment eachother. Stop trying to insult my intelligence.

Tpt makes a point that Alexander's use of his army was revolutionary in the view that he was a combat commander. he was on the field fighting with his men.... he would lead his black guard cavalry into the melee and for him the moment is all that mattered. His quick decisions and use of the enemies disposition at that moment won him his empire. His tactics were simple as you say but the way he used his cavalry and infantry was revolutionary due to the advanced comunication system of field orders directly to his officers was amazing.

Most generals in his time and Kings who led battles would usually sit on a throne like Xerexes at Thermopoli and tell there armies to charge or hold or advance. Alexander managed everything on the minute scale leaving nothing to chance... even though he was a great gambler. 😄