Historical Warfare

Discuss historical events and information concerning any culture, time, or location in our world (or even the frontier beyond).

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby Mistelten » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:43 am

Let's see if we can get this thread going again......

A time period I'd like to see more written on is the 16th century. I think it gets overlooked a lot because it is either overshadowed by the late Medieval period (100 years war and Ottoman conquests) and by the 30 Years War. Personally I think it is one of the most interesting periods because it fits right between them! People forget today that Spain was THE superpower then. It was probably the greatest superpower since the Roman Empire. It didn't get involved in a major continental war until the 30 Years War, by which time it was losing its razor edge. It did conduct some of the most amazing conquests of history in the Americas. One of the best histories of all time can be found here. It is really epic in so many ways. Zhang Fei's stand at Chang Ban bridge almost looks insignifigant compared to La Noche Triste.
User avatar
Mistelten
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:12 am

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby hahaguy » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:53 am

One thing I'm interested in, is how the ancient warfare, namely field battles, in ancient Europe differ from those in ancient east.

I'm focusing on classical age in Europe, and 3k era for Asia.

Field battles in Europe: Detailed move-by-move description of flanking maneuvers, enveloping etc. Little use of fire other than razing a city.(e.g. Reports of Alexander the Great's battles)

Field battles in Asia : Huge amounts of deception compared to the west. More about psychological battles than actual fighting. Flanking maneuvers also rather rare, and not as detailed. Fire is also much more important in the battle.
(e.g. Battle of Guandu, where it wasn't won because of a brilliant flanking and thus enveloping maneuver like those commonly found in the West, but attacking the enemy's granary with fire to achieve victory.)

Are my views correct?
hahaguy
Student
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:39 am

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby mrwongshappymushu » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:07 am

by hahaguy on Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:53 pm

One thing I'm interested in, is how the ancient warfare, namely field battles, in ancient Europe differ from those in ancient east.

I'm focusing on classical age in Europe, and 3k era for Asia.

Field battles in Europe: Detailed move-by-move description of flanking maneuvers, enveloping etc. Little use of fire other than razing a city.(e.g. Reports of Alexander the Great's battles)

Field battles in Asia : Huge amounts of deception compared to the west. More about psychological battles than actual fighting. Flanking maneuvers also rather rare, and not as detailed. Fire is also much more important in the battle.
(e.g. Battle of Guandu, where it wasn't won because of a brilliant flanking and thus enveloping maneuver like those commonly found in the West, but attacking the enemy's granary with fire to achieve victory.)

Are my views correct?


well hahaguy i may not know much considering i just got out of grade school but in the battle of Guandu Cao Cao's forces were indeed desperate considering Yuan Shao's imposing army was his opponent and that he was losing the battles against Gao Gan in the not-so-west
but were winning battles in the east against Yuan Tan because of Zang Ba's hit and run tactics but Cao Cao didnt have many troops to spare so a raid on WuChao sounds very tempting... and that raid was forseen by Zhang He which was on Yuan Shao's side at the time but his advise fell upon deaf ears Yuan Shao listened to Guo Tu's strategem so instead of rienforcing WuChao's guard they drew more from it to concentrate their forces on Cao Cao's camp.. and everyone knows what happens next

but in europe there is no deception because of the code of chivalry witch pretty much means you have to wait for your opposing force to assemble into battle array and let them set up their fortifications then you attack. while in the east there is no such thing. so they are correct to a certain extent
User avatar
mrwongshappymushu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby mrwongshappymushu » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:12 am

sorry i didnt make my point specific i agree with you but the battle of guandu was a bad example try using zhuge liang first northern campaign as and example where zhugel liang sent zhao yun and deng zhi with an army to threaten Mei through Ji gorge while zhuge liang moved his force for the The real objective. this objective was to seize the Longyou area far west of Chang'an: Tianshui, Anding, Nan'an and most of all Qishan, the defensive bastion that screened the upper Wei valley.
but this was put down because of the defeat at Jieting where the Shu Army supplies were cut
User avatar
mrwongshappymushu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby Pierre Beauregard » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:51 am

Bernardo de Gálvez beating the british in the southern colonies.
Louisiana Tigers
User avatar
Pierre Beauregard
Initiate
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:19 am

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby mrwongshappymushu » Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Chang Ban, any views on that??
User avatar
mrwongshappymushu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby HowSwiftThySword » Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:34 am

Lucky Shot for Liu Bei.
Quote of the Day:

"Someday I'll strangle you with your own beard, Cao Cao!" - Dong Zhou
HowSwiftThySword
Scholar
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Beirut, Lebanon

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby mrwongshappymushu » Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:50 pm

Oh Yeah, but He could of taken Xiang Yang at first but then he wanted Jiang Ling but he couldnt get any so he settked for Jiang Xia
User avatar
mrwongshappymushu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby dymlos timbre » Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:10 am

I have been Looking at the Numbers of troops Presented in warfare through out history, and it seems to me that the 3 kingdom era had some oddly High Troop count.

battle of Wu zhang plains, Wei was beleived to have an army of up to 200,000 strong agasint Shu's army of 100,000 strong. These numbers seem Oddly high. Rome's battles had at least ten legions in a battle witch was about 40,000 troops still thats nothing compared to Wei's 200,000.

Sengoku era of japan had armies of around 7,000 and 10,000 usually fighting in battle, and even sekigahara japans biggest battle had about 81,000 to 88,000 troops, with europe during the hundred years war, they usually had armies numbering up to 6,000 like in the battle of bauge the Franco-scott allience army was a total of 6,000 and the english had a army of 10,000
User avatar
dymlos timbre
Scholar
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:38 am
Location: At Nagashino Witnessing the end of an era.

Re: Historical Warfare

Unread postby agga » Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:59 pm

dymlos timbre wrote:I have been Looking at the Numbers of troops Presented in warfare through out history, and it seems to me that the 3 kingdom era had some oddly High Troop count.

battle of Wu zhang plains, Wei was beleived to have an army of up to 200,000 strong agasint Shu's army of 100,000 strong. These numbers seem Oddly high. Rome's battles had at least ten legions in a battle witch was about 40,000 troops still thats nothing compared to Wei's 200,000.

Sengoku era of japan had armies of around 7,000 and 10,000 usually fighting in battle, and even sekigahara japans biggest battle had about 81,000 to 88,000 troops, with europe during the hundred years war, they usually had armies numbering up to 6,000 like in the battle of bauge the Franco-scott allience army was a total of 6,000 and the english had a army of 10,000


maybe the numbers quoted there are high, but still, in those days china's population was something like 75,000,000 people. ancient rome had somethink like half that number, depending on how you count. until the 19th century, England's population was just a few million people, <10 million, and france was probably similar. japan even in the Edo era had fewer than 20,000,000 people. (of course i got all those numbers from wikipedia)

so, if you scale all those numbers, your troop figures seem about right.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to World History Deliberation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved