The Changes of Tactics/Strategies throughout history

[Count von Csollich]

What has changed since Alexander and Caesar?

...where lies the difference in the approaches Napoleon and von Manstein took in their battles?

Was Gustav II. Adolf of Sweden really the revolutionary of tactics in the 30 years war, or was Tilly, Wallenstein the determining factor?

Was the Duke of Malborough an idiot, to conduct his massive frontal assaults which cost thousands of British and allied troops their lives...or was he a brilliant mastermind?

Did WWI change the military minds of the main theoretical tacticians, which then led to the shock force tactics of WWII - still being used today? - or did the Crimean war, or perhaps even the Franco-German war of 1870/71?

Was the American Civil War a war for amateurs of the Napoleonic tactics?

Did Nelson win the war for the British against Napoleon, or did Sir Arthur Wellesley, and why (from a tacitacal AND strategic point of view?

----------------------------

ahh...so many questions, and I only scratched the surface with these few ...

if any of you are interested, this topic is there, to discuss the changes of warfare in GENERAL...
I do hope that we get a lively discussion going...with as much input as possible...any aspects are very welcome...and of course any questions for understanding as well!

why start this topic? - we have several discussions going on different issues, like LOPs, Cuirassiers vs Hussars, FoW, skirmishers and so on.....many of them could be answered with this topic in a general way...to then have the option to discuss it in  a "gaming"-way

SO THE BASIC QUESTION IS:

How much did really change in warfare since the beginning?

are there new objectives in a war? - new ways of winning a war? - all throughout history of course!

input from ancient times until nowadays are much appreciated!

CvC

[Count von Csollich]

another thing that came to my mind:

When were tactics first used in battle? - is a simple ambush...tactic enough to be mentioned in a history book? - or does it need a battle of the size of Kadesh or Issus to speak of tactics?

CvC

[General_Chasse]

Well, I am a starting amateur historian, but here's my input:

- I think that up until the 17th Century, there was a lot of siege war. Sieges went out of fashion somewhere along the road, in the 18th century.

- There was linear warfare; 2 lines of armies opposing each other, one trying to punch a hole in the other's line. Once a hole was punched, enter it with a lot of dudes and destroy the enemy from the flanks.
The French implemented their "impulse" system which was the reason why they were so succesful in the Revolutionary Wars. It took the Allies about 15-20 years to come up with a solution.

- Tactics were already implemented by nature with certain animals. Look at their colours, and at the way some hunt or survive. Animals create diversions etc. I'd be surprised if man didn't do this either in the stone age.

- Having played Take Command, and having read a bit on ACW and a lot on Napoleonics, yes, I do think the ACW was a bit of amateuristic Nappy imitation. I even heard their concept of "Napoleonic warfare" was based on Nappy III's ideas. which were nothing like his uncle's stuff. And what's with those nasty beards them American generals have? European generals looked way cooler.

[General_Chasse]

Oh, and of course, one battle in one day could end the war.
The entrenchement stuff of WWI, and all that followed, kinda put an end to that, I reckon.

[Count von Csollich]

first of all, mon Général, thanks for making these first few statements!

you pinpointed the questions I asked perfectly!

Siege warfare was most important during the Middleages, Ancient Times up to WWI...but as you said sieges became less "famous" during the 18th century - why? a good question...
During Napoleonic times, many sieges took place - but little is written in the books - because there are all these famous field battles with hundreds of thousands of men fighting each other, whereas sieges ususally don't involve more than probably a few thousand - how very boring...and yet without them, well LOPs would be unholdable...etc...!
Sieges continued to go on in WWI (Verdun) - or if you wish...basically the entire Western Front was a siege war during WWI...
In WWII only one siege comes to my mind apart from Leningrad and Stalingrad and that is Sevastopol in 1942...

it's difficult to say it for sure though...because how do you define "Siege"? - a question for all of us, really!

and I am very glad that you approached the "tactics" from the basis of mankind...what you say about animals, camouflage - I totally agree on...as soon as there was any kind of killing - tactics were involved - and therefore my question was - how much did tactics and strategies really change? - well I am going to give my oppinion on this now: not much, actually!

so thanks again for posting! - I really like that approach you took on the subject - and I hope that more people will come and post their thoughts...., because I didn't intend this to become a discussion for only those who think that they know enough to say something about it, but a discussion on the very basis of war...and many wars were fought with people in command who knew nothing or very little about tactics and strategies of warfare written down theoratically in books!

CvC

[AJ]

Did Nelson win the war for the British against Napoleon, or did Sir Arthur Wellesley, and why (from a tacitacal AND strategic point of view?

Here I go with my size 13's again. Yes Nelson's actions did more to win the war than Wellys. If Nelson hadn't managed to bottleup and eventually defeat the French Fleet, there would have been no Waterloo.  Napoleons invasion of Britain would have probably been successful and the whole course of modern history would have been changed. On the other hand if Welly had failed at Waterloo it wouldn't have been the end of the world for the Allies.  So from a Strategic angle I feel it was a definite History maker.

From a Tactical point of view, Nelson did the unheard of (or so I believe). He attacked the French Line head on rather than parallel, as was the accepted tactic of naval warfare, with the French Line positioned for the parallel attack, he took them totally by surprise. Presenting a narrow target on approach, splitting the Line and then defeating the French Piecemeal.

[Count von Csollich]

again - great idea to comment on single questions from my post...when all are answered, I'll post some more 

does anyone feel different about aj's statement? - I for one, ...don't...without Trafalgar - no Britain...without Wellington - well, I would say:  a France under a Bonaparte-emperor living peacefully with all the other major powers on the main continent...

what was so revolutionary about Nelson tactic at Trafalgar? - anyone care to evolve on this? - if noone does, I'll answer in a few days...all the points aj mentioned are correct, maybe you could evolve them a little further yourself! - was the wind in favour of Nelson? - how were the gun crews trained on both sides? - how old were the ships in the French/Spanish/British Navy? - on which warfare were the crews trained for on either sides?

CvC

PS: how did warfare at sea change during the centuries? - anyone care to give us a little overview? - oh...so many things to talk about concerning warfare....

[AJ]

So in essence Gentlemen, have all Strategies and Tactics in conflict been, essentially, "to deceive the enemy into thinking you are going to do something and then do the unexpected?"  Is this true of all the creatures in the natural world? This would make the basis of all Strategy/Tactics unchanged since time immemorial.

[Count von Csollich]

So in essence Gentlemen, have all Strategies and Tactics in conflict been, essentially, "to deceive the enemy into thinking you are going to do something and then do the unexpected?"  Is this true of all the creatures in the natural world? This would make the basis of all Strategy/Tactics unchanged since time immemorial.

this is exactly my point...main strategies always remained the same...Tactics however changed with the development of different weapons and types of warfare...but one thing always stayed the same all over history: the goal of the war - and there is this perfect saying, I believe it was Sun Tsu, but not sure: "If you start a war, you must have the intention to win it!" - or "a victorious strategist only seeks battle, after the victory has been won!"

CvC

PS: and not to forget the infamous Douglas MacArthur: "In war there is no substitute for victory"

All men who have left their mark on history, thought exactly the same thing - otherwise they would never have achieved what they did...Tuthmosis III., Ramses II., Miltiades, Leonidas, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Constantine, Charlesmagne, Gustav II Adolph, Napoleon, von Moltke/von Bismarck, Rommel,  and so on....

[AJ]

All men who have left their mark on history, thought exactly the same thing - otherwise they would never have achieved what they did...Tuthmosis III., Ramses II., Miltiades, Leonidas, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Constantine, Charlesmagne, Gustav II Adolph, Napoleon, von Moltke/von Bismarck, Rommel,  and so on....

At the risk of favouritism or bias on my part, I would add Sir Winston Spencer Churchill  K.C.G. Although not a General, his command of Strategy was breathtaking and his approach was "Hands On" (his Generals couldn't stand him for the most part as he overrode their own strategic plans). Indeed if he had been heeded we may never of had an Iron Curtain and millions of lives would have been saved. Like all great strategists there is always a "Black Mark" and Sir Winston's was Gallipoli.

[Count von Csollich]

and Jutland, as first SeaLord...I wouldn't only blame Jellicoe for that failure, although he was part of it 

CvC

[AJ]

No, your right there as well mate. He was just training for the big day though 

[Count von Csollich]

okay...back to my main attempt to get you guys discussing tactics and strategies througout history...

any more input from you?

CvC

[General_Chasse]

I am not sure on this one; but is there a big difference between Napoleon and von Manstein? They both opted to single out bodies of armies, so they could be crushed.
Von Manstein singled out the armies in Belgium from the rest of France, and Napoleon e.g. singled out the Austrians at Ulm before the Russians could link up, and he tried to crush Wellington first before meeting up with Blucher.

[Count von Csollich]

well it's one of the oldest strategies known to mankind - von Manstein's Genius wasn't only to devide the Belgian Forces and the French from the rest of France, but also to attack through territory (Ardennes) where the allied commanders didn't believe an attack with Panzers was possible.. . - exactly the same thing Napoleon did at Ulm he used Terrain, where Mack didn't expect him to be able to march that quickly...

but the idea to devide the enemy's forces dates back to the beginning of warfare and is later remembered and written down by noone less, but Imperator  Gaius Julius Caesar, with the famous words: DIVIDE ET IMPERA!

thanks for that wonderful input, mon Général

CvC