Paydro70 wrote:writerman wrote:Note on the military comparisons: Paydro, you're wrong. In warfare the technologies have changed, but the basic principles haven't changed since Alexander's time. Sun Tzu's THE ART OF WAR is every bit as valid now as when he wrote it. Great generals don't have to learn these things--they know them instinctively. If Alexander or Robert E. Lee or Patton were around today, they would still be great generals because of that. It might take a little while of explaining/demonstrating the capabilities of modern arms and other relevant technologies to them, but once that information had been absorbed they would be just as effective as leaders on the modern battlefield as they were in their own eras. I'm not a general, of course, but I was a commisioned officer in the Army in the Vietnam era, and I will tell you there's a reason they still study the campaigns of the past great military leaders in detail at places like West Point and VMI today--because as I said, the principles are timeless, and those greats would grasp the potential of modern tactics and technology very quickly and quickly learn to use them as efficiently as they did the tactics and technology of their own eras.
I think you're kidding yourself. Nothing in Alexander's experience would prepare him for the changes between leading a cavalry charge into a footsoldier army, or doing battle with elephants, to house-to-house combat against insurgents. There were no roadside bombs in 300 BC. Alexander was the head of state, he didn't have to deal with politics, and he didn't need to be concerned with civilian casualties. He wasn't trying to "pacify" a people, or hold peaceful elections, because he never had to worry about it.
I could go on, but it's pretty OT. I think we'd all like to believe that genius is genius, and I'm sure some of the skills Alexander had (i.e., troop morale) are eternal and would translate well. But it would take a lifetime of education just to understand what modern technology is and can do, he wouldn't just pick it up. Similarly, Bob Cousy couldn't just show up and play modern basketball... he'd have to be trained with it from the beginning.
I hate to do this on this thread, but because I'm not allowed to send private messages (stupid rule!) I'll post this OT message here.
Paydro70 wrote:writerman wrote:Note on the military comparisons: Paydro, you're wrong. In warfare the technologies have changed, but the basic principles haven't changed since Alexander's time. Sun Tzu's THE ART OF WAR is every bit as valid now as when he wrote it. Great generals don't have to learn these things--they know them instinctively. If Alexander or Robert E. Lee or Patton were around today, they would still be great generals because of that. It might take a little while of explaining/demonstrating the capabilities of modern arms and other relevant technologies to them, but once that information had been absorbed they would be just as effective as leaders on the modern battlefield as they were in their own eras. I'm not a general, of course, but I was a commisioned officer in the Army in the Vietnam era, and I will tell you there's a reason they still study the campaigns of the past great military leaders in detail at places like West Point and VMI today--because as I said, the principles are timeless, and those greats would grasp the potential of modern tactics and technology very quickly and quickly learn to use them as efficiently as they did the tactics and technology of their own eras.
I think you're kidding yourself. Nothing in Alexander's experience would prepare him for the changes between leading a cavalry charge into a footsoldier army, or doing battle with elephants, to house-to-house combat against insurgents. There were no roadside bombs in 300 BC. Alexander was the head of state, he didn't have to deal with politics, and he didn't need to be concerned with civilian casualties. He wasn't trying to "pacify" a people, or hold peaceful elections, because he never had to worry about it.
I could go on, but it's pretty OT. I think we'd all like to believe that genius is genius, and I'm sure some of the skills Alexander had (i.e., troop morale) are eternal and would translate well. But it would take a lifetime of education just to understand what modern technology is and can do, he wouldn't just pick it up. Similarly, Bob Cousy couldn't just show up and play modern basketball... he'd have to be trained with it from the beginning.
No...once again, you're totally wrong, as I think anyone with a halfway serious military background would tell you. The technology is only very minimally relevant, and it would take someone like Alexander, or Atilla, or Lee, or Patton a very short time to be brought up to snuff and to comprehend the capabilities of the modern military. What is ESSENTIAL to being a great genera is a laser focus on the principles ovf warfare which are just as pertinent today as they were in Alexander's day.
Those principles are encoded in the acronym MOSS MOUSE. I borrowed the following definitions from Wikipedia
MASS - Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.
OBJECTIVE - Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.
SURPRISE- Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared. Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power. By seeking surprise, forces can achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended. Surprise can be in tempo, size of force, direction or location of main effort, and timing. Deception can aid the probability of achieving surprise.
SIMPLICITY - Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure thorough understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. To the uninitiated, military operations are not difficult. Simplicity contributes to successful operations. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred.
MANEUVER - Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power. Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and protects the force. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce vulnerability. It continually poses new problems for the enemy by rendering his actions ineffective, eventually leading to defeat.
OFFENSIVE - Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective. Offensive operations are the means by which a military force seizes and holds the initiative while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This is fundamentally true across all levels of war.
UNITY OF COMMAND - For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose
SECURITY - Never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage. Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise. Security results from the measures taken by a commander to protect his forces. Knowledge and understanding of enemy strategy, tactics, doctrine, and staff planning improve the detailed planning of adequate security measures.
ECONOMY OF FORCE - Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield.
Great generals--like the ones named above--understand and apply these principles instinctively. In terms of the basics, nothing has basically changed since Alexander's day. Even airpower is just an extension of the imperative of seizing the high ground. Infantry is still infantry, albeit on steroids; armor is still the maneuver arm, used for breakthroughs (heavy armor) and intelligence and reconnaisance (light armor)just as it was in Alexander's day; the role of artillery has changed somewhat--today 80% or more of casualties in combat are inflicted by artillery, but you can go back to Lee and it was pretty much true then as well--but Alexander would have picked up on that without blinking. And it would have been an even easier transition for Julius Caesar, because Roman generals well understood the impact of the ballista, the scorpion, and the catapult on their opponents.
Genius/Imagination, measured audacity, the ability to quickly size up and react to battlefield conditions, the understanding that it is imperative to assume the offensive--those are the hallmarks of great generals, and all those I named had those traits in abundance. Poor generals fail to understnad or apply one or more of them. The technology wouldn't matter to the greatness of the great generals in history once they had a basic understanding of the capabilities of modern arms.
