07-20-2006, 06:39 PM
Quote:Leuctra (371 BC) -> Leuthen 1757 : Oblique battle order
Cannae (216 BC) -> Tannenberg 1914 : battle of encirclement and annihilation
Two of the most brilliant victories of (early) modern warfare, all-time classics of warfare, were inspired, if not outright copies of classical precursors. Both introduced military concepts which are still taught at military schools. And in both cases, Friedrich the Great and Hindenburg stated expressis verbis their inspiration by the tactics of Epameinondas respectively Hannibal. And these tactics were soon incorporated also in the Roman military corpus (Zama 202 BC, e.g.).
In contrast, Sun Tsu's views were of a rather basic binary logic: Attack if you are more numerous, evade the enemy if you are less so..hardly the stuff which lets a seasoned general drop his mouth in awe. If Hannibal had heeded that advice by the way, there would have been no Cannae...In fact, the extensive application of Chinese indirect tactics (evading, ambushing, bribing, harassing) as propagated in Sun Tsu's writings may have been a contributing factor to the extraordinary lenght of the Warring States period (480s-221 BC), a period which saw over 2 centuries of continous warfare with little shifts in the overall power balance.
A more direct approach, a systematic search for decisive battles like the Romans were known for, could have well turned out more effective than the perennial use of Condottiere tactics.
I will never be convinced that Hannibal's victory at Cannae was much more than random chance. There are so many things that could have happened beyond anyone's control that would have changed everything. War itself is very random and unpredictable, and this must be taken into account by any commander. One might argue that generalship is the art of removing elements of chance. Marching with a small army that deep into enemy territory with no hope of reinforcement or supply was beyond rash. Don't tell me Hannibal knew what he was doing. If Hannibal "knew his enemy" as Sun Tzu would advise, we wouldn't be discussing this on RomanArmyTalk, but CarthagoArmyTalk! People always like to forget that Hannibal LOST the war! The war which he greatly overstepped his authority to start in the first place! That's not military genius. Gambling with the continued existence of your country like that is just reckless.
It would be unfair to say that Roman generalship was always unpragmatic, it's just that pragmatism didn't gain alot of political points in Roman minds. Nobody talks about the guy who *really* saved the Romans from Hannibal, Quintus Fabius Maximus. Poor Pompey! If he had only listened to his own advice! Why fight Caesar when his enemy was facing certain starvation and surrender? I too would go mad if I threw the dice like that and LOST when no dice throwing was even necessary!
Against the Han, I can easily see the Romans suffering a Cannae or a Carrhae or worse. Trusting in their gods and casting the die, as Romans liked to do, can work against you as well as for you. Nobody knows that as well as Hannibal I imagine!
In the long run, I favor the Romans for the reasons I stated earlier, but as pragmatic as the chinese tend to be, I also can't put it past them to maintain peaceful relations. It would simply not be like them to have the ambition of conquering Rome. If some Roman(Crassus) had some design on conquering china, I doubt it would come to much. Who says that they have to have all out war anyway?
Rich Marinaccio
