When in history was war most "reasonable?"

In the sense that both sides generally played by the rules more often than not, did not throw double-digit percentages of their whole population into meat grinders, were willing to use diplomacy, and knew when it was time to call off the war.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    most Italian wars in the 13th-15th centuries. this resulted in them losing the feel for how to fight an actual war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't there a case of two condotierri companies basically pretending to fight each other, and actually just conspiring to scam their respective patron towns?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes.
        If I remember the only casualty in two years of war was adrunk who drowned in a puddle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Calling it a scam is giving them way too much credit. In reality, mercenaries are REALLY adverse to dying because unlike national armies who have things like their country to fight and die for, mercenaries are concerned with getting paid. And you can't get paid if you're dead. So instead of fighting in a way that's actually dangerous, they mostly engaged in sieges, the lazy man's way of warfare.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Machiavelli was a liar and actively trying to get his target audience killed, no joke.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >t. Mercenary

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not just that; he had advocated for the French entry into Italy and actively worked for the parties that escalated the conflict.
          Blud was just looking for someone else to shift the blame for something he, ever so partually, did onto.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Probably that tree incident in the DMZ after the Korean war

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is any example you find, even in the era of "gentlemanly" warfare, will include dozens of examples of UMMM WHAT ABOUT WHEN THIS SIDE ACTED LIKE COMPLETE BARBARIANS HERE

    BUT, the period between the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the French Revolution in 1789 is generally when we consider the time of "civilized" war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Speaking of the French Revolution, it became the prototype for "Total" war with its Levee en Mass and its decree that every citizen must contribute to the war effort, mainly because of the Revolutionary fear that they would all be indiscriminately slaughtered if they lost the war. I wonder how realistic that fear was. Like if Valmy was an Austro-Prussian steamroller and they captured Paris, how severe would their conduct have been?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >mainly because of the Revolutionary fear that they would all be indiscriminately slaughtered if they lost the war.
        No it was more because after the revolution happened, like the entirety of Europe declared war on France to try and crush it and reinstate the Bourbons

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Little more complex than that: 1789 had ultimately resulted in a constitutional monarchy. The more hardline revolutionary leaders in the new Legislative Assembly were saber rattling for a war with Austria, mainly because a quick victorious war would cement their positions of power, and ultimately it was France that actually declared war in 1792. The initial skirmishes were disastrous and led to an insurrection which overthrew this constitutional monarchy and led to the even more hardline Revolutionary Republic of Robespierre (though it would be almost a year before he truly came out on top within it), which deposed and then executed Louis XVI. Then Austria got distracted because Russia used the western conflict to grab a chunk of Poland, and during this distraction France recovered and invaded not only Austrian Belgium, but erstwhile neutral Netherlands. It was this rather than executing Louis that brought England into the war, because England did not want the Continental Channel Coast controlled by France. Restoring the Bourbons was likely if this first coalition won the war, but the primary (and failed) objective was containing French aggression.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well sure, France declared war. After Pilnitz declaration and the Austrians refused to recall their army on French borders (as they were training emigres for counter revolution).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The French Revolution also gave us our first counter-guerrilla campaign involving planned organized mass murder of civilians, including for religious reasons.We really own a lot of today to that era.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All of them. Sometimes to create you must destroy.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A bunch of wars during the antiquity basically boiled down to "move a bunch of phalanxes around and when someone gets outmaneuvered they lose"

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Posting the other version (less realist I know, it's clearly pro-despot propaganda)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yours is the original, and it's just making a point on jingoism. OP's is basically just the way campists see the world, where their side is always bad and the other side (aka the Soviets) are automatically good for opposing them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >OP's is basically just the way campists see the world,
        We can say "jews" here

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, campists are a very specific, left-wing phenomenon. It's political contrarianism born out of being a tankie who loves the Soviet Union but would never actually live in those kinds of countries because they know they'd eventually frick up and get disappeared.
          Not to mention, most campists fricking hate Israel with a burning passion, specifically because it's US-backed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine being so moronic you can't tell that the one you posted is the original and being sarcastic.

      The problem is any example you find, even in the era of "gentlemanly" warfare, will include dozens of examples of UMMM WHAT ABOUT WHEN THIS SIDE ACTED LIKE COMPLETE BARBARIANS HERE

      BUT, the period between the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the French Revolution in 1789 is generally when we consider the time of "civilized" war.

      This, although it should be noted that the accepted reason for that state of affairs was the huge defensive power of star forts and the smaller size of the professional armies then in vogue at the time, leading to indecisive and ritualized warfare that emphasized extremely methodical sieges that operated like clockwork.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Imagine being so moronic you can't tell that the one you posted is the original and being sarcastic.
        Imagine being so moronic you can't tell if someone is joking

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yours is the original, and it's just making a point on jingoism. OP's is basically just the way campists see the world, where their side is always bad and the other side (aka the Soviets) are automatically good for opposing them.

          Imagine being so moronic you can't tell that the one you posted is the original and being sarcastic.

          [...]
          This, although it should be noted that the accepted reason for that state of affairs was the huge defensive power of star forts and the smaller size of the professional armies then in vogue at the time, leading to indecisive and ritualized warfare that emphasized extremely methodical sieges that operated like clockwork.

          >Imagine being so moronic you can't tell that the one you posted is the original and being sarcastic.
          I confirm it was sarcasm.
          I don't blame you, we've reached a point where it's common to subvert the subtext of the meta joke and it's as if anonymous text message convey information poorly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >actually there's no difference between the West and Russia! Why do you hate the outgroup? I am very enlightened!
      2010 era center-left rationalism aged like milk.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The assessment that a full blown peer war would probably cost far more than you'd gain from it has held up pretty well. The mistake was assuming others would care about that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm suddenly reminded of Dan Carlin's boxing analogy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nta but what is it

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Basically that back in the day, most countries could dish out punches but they couldn't really take them. There were tons of wars where basically one big battle decided the entire war (which is what started the whole meme of pre-modern generals trying to force ONE BIG DECISIVE BATTLE) because pre-industrial states just didn't have the capacity to just churn out a whole new field army if theirs was wiped out, they pretty much were forced to surrender simple from lacking the ability to keep going. The thing that made the big empires different is their populations were so big that they could lose an entire field army and get to work forming a new one, which in his analogy is a boxer that isn't a Glass Joe.

              What the frick is this response? You agree with my point, but you're doing it as though you're trying to prove me wrong.
              >the rout
              That was not a factor in Archaic Greece. Note that I capitalized Archaic and also note that I didn't say Classical Greece. I trust you know the difference?
              [...]
              You're a fricking moron who needs to read more.

              >What the frick is this response? You agree with my point, but you're doing it as though you're trying to prove me wrong.
              I wasn't trying to disagree with you, I was just having a conversation to bring more elaboration on your point. Don't be so combative, anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like how wars are fought today. I mean conventionally of course.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Modern industrial society means it's much harder to knock out a country in one blow anymore and now you have to grind them down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Barring exceptions of course, like Desert Storm where the blow inflicted was so insanely severe that it was impossible to recover from before the war's end due to the sheer speed and power with which it was inflicted.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                paradoxically, this is the most ethical and humane way to engage in warfare. when it is successful it can be seen as a drastic over reaction/application of force.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It’s less modern industry and more modern standards of warfare that avoid overwhelming force against civilian areas. If the enemy hides among civilians, and you can’t just slaughter everyone, it’s very difficult to win quickly. You have to slowly grind them down. If Israel for example could just carpet bomb and starve Gaza fully, they’d win in 2 days simply by inflicting casualties the enemy can’t sustain. After 1.5 million people would be killed, the war is over since Palestinians simply don’t exist in Gaza anymore

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's also just because national armies are way bigger than they used to be. Napoleon's La Grande Armée that he marched into Russia, was 600,000 men. No one else on the planet at the time had 600,000 armed and trained men for a single invasion, that was an insanely huge number. Now that's the standard for lots of big countries.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Or as he famously said to Metternich,
                >You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 men a month.
                If any other land power in Europe lost 30k men in a month, that would be a deadly blow to their military. He could throw that many away just to ensure victory. It was the difference between small professional armies and mass conscription.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It really don't have or need any political meaning.
        It's just a mockery of how we are capable of glorifying/hating things that are (here made clearly) identical for petty reason.
        Just like the meaning of a joke can flip around if your change the context.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      daft

      >actually there's no difference between the West and Russia! Why do you hate the outgroup? I am very enlightened!
      2010 era center-left rationalism aged like milk.

      off topic

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All wars are just

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The 80 years war is kinda up there.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aztec ritual "flower wars" are an extreme example because of the human sacrifice, but it had rules of engagement, and milder forms existed in China during the Spring and Autumn period, in Europe in the Middle Ages and following the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.

    Also you might even call the Cold War as being somewhat reasonable by deflecting the US-USSR conflict into proxy wars. That was a rational strategy for the superpowers, if not the client states and movements they instrumentalized. When you have a conflict between major powers, you can shift the battlefield onto weaker people in the periphery for onto an enemy's lesser allies. That can be devastating for the playthings but contains its own rules.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By your definition, the Chinese Indian border skirmishes
    >tiny fraction of the population
    >blunt melee weapons only
    >called off before things get too serious
    Personally, I wonder what the point of “reasonable “ war is, and how “reasonable “ having such a war in the first place is.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I wonder what the point of “reasonable “ war is, and how “reasonable “ having such a war in the first place is.
      to decide a dispute when both parties disagree, without causing massive death and destruction
      only works for minor disputes ofc

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >inb4 but 2000 people died for a fricking bucket
    Yeah, over the course of 300 years. That's not bad imo.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >war over a bucket
      sounds about right

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's a gross oversimplification which historians and "historians" kept on repeating because, "lol, meme wars".

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like "Liberators" would be better than "Adventurers", has more of connotation that directly effects you and your fellow savages

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The height of the samurai horse archer.
    two captains would fire a single arrow at each other from across the field of battle. If one was hit, the battle was over. If both were hit, it was a draw. If neither was hit, the armies would fight in regular order until one side declared their loss. All the dead and wounded were tended for and returned or ransomed back by both sides
    Mongols cured them of that shit overnight, but while it lasted it was extremely civilized

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Archaic Greece where 2 cities would have their phalanxes meet at a specified spot and fight until 1 side gave up. It was quite civilized and few men died in it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and few men died in it.
      Mostly because it was actually quite hard to die in battle in most of human history. Go aheead, YOU try and stab someone to death while at the same time not trying to get stabbed yourself and that person is also actively defending themselves. 90% of casualties happened when one side turned and ran and were cut down in the retreat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >90% of casualties happened when one side turned and ran and were cut down in the retreat.
        objection; speculative

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not speculative, the vast majority of historical accounts showed that not many people died until one side tried to run and got routed. Shit like Cannae was exceedingly rare.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You have got to be joking.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not speculative, the vast majority of historical accounts showed that not many people died until one side tried to run and got routed. Shit like Cannae was exceedingly rare.

            What the frick is this response? You agree with my point, but you're doing it as though you're trying to prove me wrong.
            >the rout
            That was not a factor in Archaic Greece. Note that I capitalized Archaic and also note that I didn't say Classical Greece. I trust you know the difference?
            [...]
            You're a fricking moron who needs to read more.

            Got any examples and proofs?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Most of the histories written in Antiquity are free. Go read them. You need to.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and proofs
                I really would like very much to see the EVIDENCE that
                >90% of casualties happened when one side turned and ran and were cut down in the retreat.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >why does a mass of panicked fleeing men get picked apart by calvary because it left them weakened, divided, and without any manner of counter, with the cavalry being significantly swifter then them and often better armed and trained due to their status
                who could figure this out?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Anyone can speculate.
                I asked for evidence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Look up a couple battles that were one sided stomps, a couple draws and a couple hard fought ones that ended with one side finally losing.

                You will notice that draws usually have comparatively low casualties while stomps and hard fought battles have higher casualties. But counter intuitively hard fought battles have lopsided casualties like stomps.

                The reason as others have explained to you already is that infantry is very vulnerable during a rout and prone to surrender.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But counter intuitively hard fought battles have lopsided casualties like stomps.
                the ratio of (reliably reported) casualties for one-sided stomps is not the same as that of hard-fought battles

                >the other model is simply that the superior side inflicted a higher casualty ratio until eventually attrition AS WELL AS morale took its toll.
                That doesn't measure up with the accounts and casuality figures of a lot of battles.

                We can also verify both theories with more recent battles and campaigns. It's pretty clear that a rout has the potential for massive casualty figures even today.

                tl;dr: homosexual.

                >We can also verify both theories with more recent battles and campaigns.
                Uhuh
                and attrition was even, was it, until the rout occurred?
                >That doesn't measure up
                It does, and it is one of the suggested scenarios

                You frickwits just ran with the more fantastical option because it appealed to your fancy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the ratio of (reliably reported) casualties for one-sided stomps is not the same as that of hard-fought battles
                Obviously not. It's still lopsided, i.e. the victor inflicts a large boost during the retreat. When armies manage to make an orderly retreat losses are not quite even but still close.

                >attrition was even, was it, until the rout occurred?
                Doesn't have to be. We see that the routed site takes a lot of extra casualties after the battle.

                >blah blah projection, fantasy
                You are simply wrong.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's still lopsided
                of course
                that's called "losing"
                but in order to lose, one must first take disproportionate casualties in the primary phase of the battle
                >the victor inflicts a large boost during the retreat
                as I said: nowhere near 90% however, and more like 1/2 or 2/3rds of the total
                >When armies manage to make an orderly retreat losses are not quite even but still close.
                lmao
                "not quite even but still close" - is that what you call 2:1 or even 3:1 loss ratios?
                >We see that the routed site takes a lot of extra casualties after the battle.
                but once again, nowhere near 90%

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but in order to lose, one must first take disproportionate casualties in the primary phase of the battle
                There are many causes for losing a battle, suffering heavy losses is only one of them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think the battle of Gaugamela is basically the prototypical rout of the ancient world. You have there a 40:1 casualty count (at least) and we know for a fact the vast majority of the killing was during pursuit. Even a generous 4:1 casualty count for the battle until breakthrough, leaves over 90% of casualties to have been incurred after disorganized retreat began

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the battle of Gaugamela is basically the prototypical rout of the ancient world
                Gaugamela is one of those hilariously one-sided curbstomps such as Agincourt or Stirling Bridge that happen every now and then, and in truth can we really rely on the numbers given in the sources we have for these battles?
                >You have there a 40:1 casualty count (at least)
                Ridiculous
                do some fricking math and figure out what 40:1 actually means
                Gaugamela's figures are almost certainly inflated tremendously
                5:1 is more likely
                > and we know for a fact the vast majority of the killing was during pursuit
                do we?

                [...]
                And this doesn’t even count captured enemy, which was basically all incurred after the rout began

                >And this doesn’t even count captured enemy
                Ridiculous.

                From the hoplite battles of Greece we know that attrition in the main phase of combat can be as high as 3:1 before one side breaks. 2:1 is more likely. Why should anyone be dispirited by taking equivalent losses? (the exception being if one side is more numerous than the other)
                afterwards, the extent of the rout differs from battle to battle, era to era, and they can be heavy, but it is vanishingly rare for them to be 9 times that of the main battle.
                even at Cannae, where out of 80,000 Romans about 50,000 were killed in the main battle, some 10,000 escaped. and Hannibal is reckoned to have taken around 8,000 casualties. and this figure includes the Roman base camp and small outposts which were overrun in the next couple of days.

                the rout phase is also not as one-sided as people think. here and there, pockets of resistance would have formed and held up the chase, and inflicted additional casualties on the pursuers. take Waterloo for example.

                https://i.imgur.com/Ek7MXNz.gif

                >but in order to lose, one must first take disproportionate casualties in the primary phase of the battle
                There are many causes for losing a battle, suffering heavy losses is only one of them.

                Very few battles have been won entirely by manoeuvre.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Why should anyone be dispirited by taking equivalent losses?
                That’s moronic. Infantry tactics exist. If you manage to break the enemy lines, for example, and overrun the position, this often triggers a rout.

                You clearly don’t understand what a rout is or why it happens.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Very few battles have been won entirely by manoeuvre.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What is this shitty nonsequitur?? Breaking the opposing lines is not a “maneuver” and it happens in literally every decisive battle you mongoloid

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He didn’t say a battle was won entirely by maneuver. He said the lines break and a rout occurs. Frick off troll

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >asks for examples
                Given an example
                >NOOO NOT THAT ONE
                >ALSO ITS FAKE
                >ALSO THE GREEKS MAGICALLY KILLED 5:1 FOR NO REASON
                Lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Gaugamela
                >40:1
                >And this doesn’t even count captured enemy
                not even Wikipedia is that fricking moronic

                What is this shitty nonsequitur?? Breaking the opposing lines is not a “maneuver” and it happens in literally every decisive battle you mongoloid

                >Breaking the opposing lines is not a “maneuver”
                Correct; it is often performed in concert with ATTRITION

                >Very few battles have been won entirely by manoeuvre.
                you also get battles where one side quickly realizes that the situation won't be going in their favor and beats a hasty retreat.
                A loss doesn't even require a battle in the first place, if one side realizes they're outmatched and cedes the objective, that's a loss as well.

                >you also get battles where one side quickly realizes that the situation won't be going in their favor and beats a hasty retreat.
                yes, I gave one example myself: if say a smaller force takes equivalent casualties
                >A loss doesn't even require a battle in the first place
                Let's not complicate this even further by adding conflicts settled without battles.

                This is what actually happened for most battles:
                two armies clash
                one side starts taking disproportionate attrition
                morale drops, that side starts giving up ground, backing off, unwilling to counterattack
                this opens up room for the other side to manoeuvre, to cut off parts of the army or even encircle the whole
                eventually the losing side takes too many casualties and breaks up
                a general retreat occurs
                the rate of attrition, encirclement, and elimination/capture accelerates
                by scattering in multiple directions, the losers force the winners to choose which part of the army they'll destroy
                eventually night falls or the pursuers are too tired to keep up
                in the best and least unreliable examples we have, roughly half to 1/3rd the casualties occur before the rout, and half to 2/3rds afterwards

                >do we?
                Yes. It’s reported in every history and agreed upon by all contemporary historians that Darius turned the majority of the army and ran after the breakthrough.

                >Darius turned the majority of the army and ran after the breakthrough.
                That doesn't mean that:
                >the vast majority of the killing was during pursuit

                He didn’t say a battle was won entirely by maneuver. He said the lines break and a rout occurs. Frick off troll

                >WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE DISPIRITED BY TAKING EQUIVALENT LOSSES?
                Why don't you frick off since you can't follow the fricking thread, even with the help of greentext?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not even Wikipedia is that moronic
                It’s the almost lowest end of the range Wikipedia gives lmao. You’re illiterate

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wow I was wrong, Wikipedia IS that moronic
                and you as well

                >but in order to lose, one must first take disproportionate casualties in the primary phase of the battle
                *cough* *cough* Cunaxa.

                lol you funny man, you die last

                You’re clearly just trolling. No way anyone is this moronic. A breakthrough is not triggered by attrition. It’s triggered by enemy advancement throwing off formations and causing disruption. You’re so fricking stupid holy shit

                >A breakthrough is not triggered by attrition
                >least moronic manoeuvreist

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your concession is accepted and your ignorance is unfortunately typical.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >t. thinks that "we know for a fact the Iliad happened"

                https://i.imgur.com/RFCIEq9.jpg

                >a formation breaking is a maneuver
                for some reason you seem to think only maneuver and attrition are the only types of warfare.

                Try breaking down "formation breaking" into its component stages.
                This is actually a debate relevant to modern armies, by the way: how much does one degrade an enemy's strength by attrition first before attempting to penetrate, cut off, and encircle parts of the opposing force.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >alexander the great is the Iliad
                Lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Try breaking down "formation breaking" into its component stages.
                Step 1) Form a formation of your own.
                Step 2) Identify weakpoints in the enemy formation (technically optional, but recommended).
                Step 3) Strengthen your formation where the enemy formation is weak.
                Step 4) The enemy suffers heavier losses at their weakpoints,
                Step 5) Exploit the newly formed openings.
                Step 6) The enemy unit can no longer maintain local cohesion.
                Step 7) Loss of cohesion spreads across the whole of the enemy unit.
                Step 8) The overall formation disintegrates, morale plummets, route commences.
                Step 9) Routing soldiers get picked of by skirmishers or ran down by cavalry.

                >inb4 you have to kill people at step 4, that means I'm right!
                Depending on how disciplined your enemy is you have to kill as little as 10%. the vast majority of deaths happen during the rout (like we've been saying since the start).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a formation breaking is a maneuver
                for some reason you seem to think only maneuver and attrition are the only types of warfare.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >manoeuvre manoeuvre manoeuvre manoeuvre
                A line breaking or being overwhelmed is not a maneuver you dumb moron. How many times do people have to tell you that for you to understand?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Try breaking down "formation breaking" into its component stages.

                >alexander the great is the Iliad
                Lmao

                >Believes ancient writers' numbers 100%
                Lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Formation breaking:

                1) The attacking force identifies a vulnerable point within the enemy’s formation or defense line. This could be due to terrain, insufficient troop strength, or lack of support.

                2) The attackers concentrate their forces to exploit this weakness, often using surprise and speed to their advantage.

                3) The assault begins with a focused attack on the identified weak spot, attempting to overwhelm the defenders.

                4) The attackers penetrate the formation, aiming to create a breach for further exploitation.

                5) Following the breach, the attacking force moves quickly to exploit the gap, aiming to disrupt command and control, order and communication within the enemy formation.

                6) As the assault continues, the cohesion of the defending force breaks down, leading to a loss of morale and order. Units begin to retreat or surrender.

                7) Pursuit.

                That’s it. It has nothing to do with casualty ratios or better attrition. Your initial assault could lose seven times the amount of the defending forces but if the breakthrough occurs, you still win. Fricking moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You just described pure manouevreist doctrine, Sprey, and you probably don't even know it.

                https://i.imgur.com/2on0ER9.gif

                >I didn't like the example so it doesn't count

                Not a single historian of any repute takes ancient Greek propaganda figures at face value, dipshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >manouevreist doctrine
                It’s literally an empirical description of what happens. Either explain which part you disagree with or leave, tard

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >Gaugamela
                >40:1
                >And this doesn’t even count captured enemy
                not even Wikipedia is that fricking moronic

                [...]
                >Breaking the opposing lines is not a “maneuver”
                Correct; it is often performed in concert with ATTRITION

                [...]
                >you also get battles where one side quickly realizes that the situation won't be going in their favor and beats a hasty retreat.
                yes, I gave one example myself: if say a smaller force takes equivalent casualties
                >A loss doesn't even require a battle in the first place
                Let's not complicate this even further by adding conflicts settled without battles.

                This is what actually happened for most battles:
                two armies clash
                one side starts taking disproportionate attrition
                morale drops, that side starts giving up ground, backing off, unwilling to counterattack
                this opens up room for the other side to manoeuvre, to cut off parts of the army or even encircle the whole
                eventually the losing side takes too many casualties and breaks up
                a general retreat occurs
                the rate of attrition, encirclement, and elimination/capture accelerates
                by scattering in multiple directions, the losers force the winners to choose which part of the army they'll destroy
                eventually night falls or the pursuers are too tired to keep up
                in the best and least unreliable examples we have, roughly half to 1/3rd the casualties occur before the rout, and half to 2/3rds afterwards

                [...]
                >Darius turned the majority of the army and ran after the breakthrough.
                That doesn't mean that:
                >the vast majority of the killing was during pursuit

                [...]
                >WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE DISPIRITED BY TAKING EQUIVALENT LOSSES?
                Why don't you frick off since you can't follow the fricking thread, even with the help of greentext?

                >Breaking the opposing lines is not a “maneuver”
                >Correct; it is often performed in concert with ATTRITION
                >This is what actually happened for most battles:

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Either explain which part you disagree with or leave, tard.
                And reminder, the post you replied to was

                Formation breaking:

                1) The attacking force identifies a vulnerable point within the enemy’s formation or defense line. This could be due to terrain, insufficient troop strength, or lack of support.

                2) The attackers concentrate their forces to exploit this weakness, often using surprise and speed to their advantage.

                3) The assault begins with a focused attack on the identified weak spot, attempting to overwhelm the defenders.

                4) The attackers penetrate the formation, aiming to create a breach for further exploitation.

                5) Following the breach, the attacking force moves quickly to exploit the gap, aiming to disrupt command and control, order and communication within the enemy formation.

                6) As the assault continues, the cohesion of the defending force breaks down, leading to a loss of morale and order. Units begin to retreat or surrender.

                7) Pursuit.

                That’s it. It has nothing to do with casualty ratios or better attrition. Your initial assault could lose seven times the amount of the defending forces but if the breakthrough occurs, you still win. Fricking moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                breaking the enemy lines is not a maneuver. You can suffer ten times enemy casualties and still break through. The reason successful attackers usually lose less men is because
                A) they are successful, and proceed to slaughter the enemy
                B) they have a greater concentration of men at the position, and therefore slaughter the enemy
                It has nothing to do with casualty ratios. Like I said, you can suffer ten times the enemy casualties in an assault and still break through.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The histories of Alexander’s wars are far more reliable than a moronic anon who doesn’t know what maneuver means

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Not a single historian of any repute takes ancient Greek propaganda figures at face value, dipshit.
                Find me a single historian who disputes that the rebels lost at Cunaxa the moment Cyrus the younger died.
                Go on, you mouthbreathing mongoloid.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >everything I don’t like is a “manoeuvre”
                New type of moron spotted

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it's not manoeuvre
                >it's not attrition
                Okay so what is it? Go on, explain.

                https://i.imgur.com/UA9a1cK.jpg

                >Try breaking down "formation breaking" into its component stages.
                Step 1) Form a formation of your own.
                Step 2) Identify weakpoints in the enemy formation (technically optional, but recommended).
                Step 3) Strengthen your formation where the enemy formation is weak.
                Step 4) The enemy suffers heavier losses at their weakpoints,
                Step 5) Exploit the newly formed openings.
                Step 6) The enemy unit can no longer maintain local cohesion.
                Step 7) Loss of cohesion spreads across the whole of the enemy unit.
                Step 8) The overall formation disintegrates, morale plummets, route commences.
                Step 9) Routing soldiers get picked of by skirmishers or ran down by cavalry.

                >inb4 you have to kill people at step 4, that means I'm right!
                Depending on how disciplined your enemy is you have to kill as little as 10%. the vast majority of deaths happen during the rout (like we've been saying since the start).

                >Step 4) The enemy suffers heavier losses at their weakpoints,
                aka attrition
                >Step 5) Exploit the newly formed openings.
                aka manoeuvre
                your description is more or less the same as I have written myself above

                >Depending on how disciplined your enemy is you have to kill as little as 10%
                10% of the total army? yes
                10% of total CASUALTIES? hell no

                >the vast majority of deaths happen during the rout
                this is just one interpretation of the least unreliable reports of battle casualties that has gained popularity to the point of drowning out all other alternatives
                the other interpretation is that a significant degree of attrition first occurred, LEADING to the breakthrough and rout.
                most battles are somewhere in the middle.
                either way, it is ridiculous to say that 90% of casualties occurred during the rout, and even more ridiculous to claim that "we know this for a fact", when it is actually just one of two or three lines of speculated possibilities to explain what data we have

                picrel is Krentz on hoplite battle casualties, one of the least controversial sources we have for this period, because the Greeks were more circumspect with recording casualties in their battles with each other
                he also points out that sources on friendly casualties are often obscured with weasel words like "many"
                and everyone agrees that great battles such as Gaugamela or Marathon are hilariously exaggerated for propaganda purposes

                the average as you can see here is 3:1. now, there are two possible ways to interpret this. either:
                1) as Krentz thinks, the Greeks didn't pursue and rout their Greek frenemies.
                in which case attrition in the main battle stage yields as many as 3:1 losses AS I SAID
                or
                2) the Greeks DID attempt a pursuit, in which case even a rout inflicts significant casualties on the pursuer.

                if we assume 1), then great battles should always have 30:1 casualty ratios.

                but they didn't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >everyone agrees gaugamela is exaggerated
                >all experts and sources agree it was at least on the scale of 1:40
                Absolutely pathetic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >all experts and sources agree it was at least on the scale of 1:40
                literal fricking idiot

                >aka attrition
                You don't even have to kill them, simply pushing them back with sheer mass (like with heavy cavalry) would do it.
                >aka manoeuvre
                By your apparent definition simply marching your army up to the enemy stabbing them would be considered maneuver warfare.
                >10% of the total army? yes
                10% of the formation you are attacking. I made it as general as possible so it could be applied at both the unit and army level.
                >10% of total CASUALTIES? hell no
                Possibly, if your opponent is a disorganized mob with shit morale, and you have a lot of cavalry to exploit the rout.
                >this is just one interpretation of the least unreliable reports of battle casualties that has gained popularity to the point of drowning out all other alternatives
                I wasn't talking about any specific battle. this is how these things have gone throughout history.
                > even a rout inflicts significant casualties on the pursuer
                You don't know what a rout is.

                >By your apparent definition simply marching your army up to the enemy stabbing them would be considered maneuver warfare
                it would be attritional if the casualty ratios were favourable; it would be manoeuvreist if the result was to demoralise the enemy, allowing attackers to take favourable ground, rinse and repeat
                >this is how these things have gone throughout history.
                wrong
                this is just one interpretation of how these things have gone throughout history, that has gained popularity to the point of drowning out all other alternative explanations.
                >You don't know what a rout is.
                By all means, explain.
                I feel like I'm the only one taking a positivist stance here.

                breaking the enemy lines is not a maneuver. You can suffer ten times enemy casualties and still break through. The reason successful attackers usually lose less men is because
                A) they are successful, and proceed to slaughter the enemy
                B) they have a greater concentration of men at the position, and therefore slaughter the enemy
                It has nothing to do with casualty ratios. Like I said, you can suffer ten times the enemy casualties in an assault and still break through.

                >breaking the enemy lines is not a maneuver
                >It has nothing to do with casualty ratios
                right, so according to you it's neither manoeuvre nor attritional
                what is it then? YOU tell me

                >You can suffer ten times enemy casualties and still break through
                and what does that accomplish?
                THINK
                that's a manoeuvreist concept; to defeat an opponent not by inflicting greater casualties, but by seizing favourable terrain, e.g. across his supply line, or breaking his morale, or eliminating key commanders

                or the Greeks pursued their enemies just a little, and due to the fact that these weren’t organized campaigns and these “battles” were often tiny skirmishes by later standards, pursuit wasn’t well designed to annihilate the enemy and degrade his future warfare capabilities. Not all battles are the same as minor fighting between glorified towns.

                >pursuit wasn’t well designed to annihilate the enemy and degrade his future warfare capabilities
                that falls into option 1 as well
                it still illustrates that the main battle inflicts higher ratios of mutual casualties than that ridiculous "10%" claim

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >right, so according to you it's neither manoeuvre nor attritional
                what is it then? YOU tell me
                it’s NEITHER you gorilla monkey moron. It’s just an EMPIRICAL PHENOMENON. It’s NOT A TACTIC. It’s just a THING THAT HAPPENS IN BATTLES. It’s an OUTCOME. You are a moron holy shit lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that falls into option 1 as well
                it still illustrates that the main battle inflicts higher ratios of mutual casualties than that ridiculous "10%" claim
                No it doesn’t. It’s in between the two cases. A rout in Greece wasn’t as significant because although pursuit happened on the field and the opponent was chased off it, they weren’t pursued further with intent to destroy them in detail. Meaning it literally implies nothing regarding cases where that did happen, and also is meaningless regarding casualties in the main battle. My guess is main battle was nearly 1:1 but once one side faltered and broke it became a slaughter until they were driven off the field, turning into more of a 1:2-3 ratio

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Meaning it literally implies nothing regarding cases where that did happen, and also is meaningless regarding casualties in the main battle
                that's very nice theorycrafting that just so happens to have your cake and eat it too, but anybody can speculate
                >My guess is main battle was nearly 1:1 but once one side faltered and broke
                My question is, assuming equal forces, why would one side "falter and break" in a head on clash unless it was taking disproportionate casualties, or one side had manoeuvred into favourable terrain or taken out a key commander?

                >it would be attritional if the casualty ratios were favourable
                Incorrect. attrition is about reducing enemy capabilities through constant pressure. you can have a worse casualty ratios than the enemy and still win attritionally.
                >it would be manoeuvreist if the result was to demoralise the enemy, allowing attackers to take favourable ground, rinse and repeat
                So what I described wasn't maneuver warfare after all? unless you count "inside the enemy formation" as favorable ground.
                >this is just one interpretation of how these things have gone throughout history
                You realize that we have records of wars that were more recent than antiquity, right? and that these records are in line with what we are saying?
                > that has gained popularity to the point of drowning out all other alternative explanations
                Accuracy does tend to have that effect, yes.
                >By all means, explain.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rout

                >attrition is about reducing enemy capabilities
                literally manoeuvreist doctrine
                look up your AirLand Battle
                >you can have a worse casualty ratios than the enemy and still win attritionally
                oxymoronic
                >and that these records are in line with what we are saying?
                how actually generalisable are findings from armoured mobile warfare to a Greco-Roman sword-and-shield footslog?
                >Accuracy does tend to have that effect, yes
                Populism
                >Wikipedia link
                If you're unable to explain in your own words, you clearly don't understand the subject

                Cite one expert that thinks less than ~40000 Persians were killed in the wake of gaugamela. Consensus is more than that died. It was a gigantic army.

                >Bosworth, A. B. 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander: Commentary on Books I-III. Oxford: Oxford University Press
                cited in Keenan-Jones and Hebblewhite, 2017

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >My question is, assuming equal forces, why would one side "falter and break" in a head on clash unless it was taking disproportionate casualties, or one side had manoeuvred into favourable terrain or taken out a key commander?
                Like many have tried to explain to you, a rout is a psychological phenomenon. It could happen for many reasons. Usually the final reason would be one unit starts to falter for some reason, and suddenly nearby units notice and begin the follow suit, trying to avoid being the final losers. This always happens in the end and it’s always happen to one side first. It could be triggered by one soldier breaking and running. It could happen because one commander couldn’t rally the troops as well because they dislike him. Mundane random things. Many other possible reasons. It doesn’t have to be because you’re talking more casualties. It often happens even if you’re taking less casualties.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >literally manoeuvreist doctrine
                >look up your AirLand Battle
                Can you keep your definitions consistent? now just killing the enemy is maneuver warfare?
                >oxymoronic
                Nope, you can absolutely lose more men than the enemy and still win. Your arguments, on the other hand, are just the regular kind of moronic.
                >how actually generalisable are findings from armoured mobile warfare to a Greco-Roman sword-and-shield footslog?
                You realize there is this small, (2000 year-ish) period between these two times that also had wars (with records)?
                >Populism
                Accuracy tends to be pretty popular in science, yes.
                >If you're unable to explain in your own words, you clearly don't understand the subject
                Holy shit talk about bad faith.
                Wikipedia gives a good beginner level definition, which is what you need because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (as we can see from you constantly shifting definitions).
                Why don't you give me a better definition of a rout then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >literally manoeuvreist doctrine
                >look up your AirLand Battle
                Can you keep your definitions consistent? now just killing the enemy is maneuver warfare?
                >oxymoronic
                Nope, you can absolutely lose more men than the enemy and still win. Your arguments, on the other hand, are just the regular kind of moronic.
                >how actually generalisable are findings from armoured mobile warfare to a Greco-Roman sword-and-shield footslog?
                You realize there is this small, (2000 year-ish) period between these two times that also had wars (with records)?
                >Populism
                Accuracy tends to be pretty popular in science, yes.
                >If you're unable to explain in your own words, you clearly don't understand the subject
                Holy shit talk about bad faith.
                Wikipedia gives a good beginner level definition, which is what you need because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (as we can see from you constantly shifting definitions).
                Why don't you give me a better definition of a rout then?

                >Why don't you give me a better definition of a rout then?
                You know what, screw that, I'm just going to tell you why you're wrong.
                A rout is a disorganized and chaotic retreat where morale is completely gone and command has totally broken down.
                They won't be inflicting casualties on pursuers because their ONLY priority is to get the frick out, often abandoning their weapons in the process.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Bosworth, A. B. 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander: Commentary on Books I-III. Oxford: Oxford University Press
                >cited in Keenan-Jones and Hebblewhite, 2017
                Lol bosworth only said that Macedonian casualties were hidden and that massive reinforcements were probably drawn from Macedonia. This view has been soundly rejected by the consensus and after this bosworth HIMSELF took back these claims as unfounded. Nice midwitting though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it would be attritional if the casualty ratios were favourable
                Incorrect. attrition is about reducing enemy capabilities through constant pressure. you can have a worse casualty ratios than the enemy and still win attritionally.
                >it would be manoeuvreist if the result was to demoralise the enemy, allowing attackers to take favourable ground, rinse and repeat
                So what I described wasn't maneuver warfare after all? unless you count "inside the enemy formation" as favorable ground.
                >this is just one interpretation of how these things have gone throughout history
                You realize that we have records of wars that were more recent than antiquity, right? and that these records are in line with what we are saying?
                > that has gained popularity to the point of drowning out all other alternative explanations
                Accuracy does tend to have that effect, yes.
                >By all means, explain.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rout

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Cite one expert that thinks less than ~40000 Persians were killed in the wake of gaugamela. Consensus is more than that died. It was a gigantic army.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >right, so according to you it's neither manoeuvre nor attritional
                >what is it then? YOU tell me
                This is the biggest midwit clown shit I’ve ever read lmfao. Everything the happens on a battlefield is apparently either attrition or maneuver to you. General takes a shit? Thats maneuver. Soldiers get stuck in the mud? Attrition

                I’ll try to explain: you have a gigantic category error in your basic thinking. Attritional vs maneuver warfare are theoretical models of tactics. They are not supposed to be categories into which all actions or results on the field are sorted. This is something a fifth grader understands.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >theoretical models are not categories
                in the sciences a "theoretical model" is literally "how we think the world works", moron, so yes it IS categorical
                you don't know what "epistemology" means, or you wouldn't say stupid shit like that

                >My question is, assuming equal forces, why would one side "falter and break" in a head on clash unless it was taking disproportionate casualties, or one side had manoeuvred into favourable terrain or taken out a key commander?
                Like many have tried to explain to you, a rout is a psychological phenomenon. It could happen for many reasons. Usually the final reason would be one unit starts to falter for some reason, and suddenly nearby units notice and begin the follow suit, trying to avoid being the final losers. This always happens in the end and it’s always happen to one side first. It could be triggered by one soldier breaking and running. It could happen because one commander couldn’t rally the troops as well because they dislike him. Mundane random things. Many other possible reasons. It doesn’t have to be because you’re talking more casualties. It often happens even if you’re taking less casualties.

                Yes, and I'm very well aware of all that. However,
                >It doesn’t have to be because you’re talking more casualties. It often happens even if you’re taking less casualties.
                Wrong; it RARELY happens to the side taking less casualties.

                >literally manoeuvreist doctrine
                >look up your AirLand Battle
                Can you keep your definitions consistent? now just killing the enemy is maneuver warfare?
                >oxymoronic
                Nope, you can absolutely lose more men than the enemy and still win. Your arguments, on the other hand, are just the regular kind of moronic.
                >how actually generalisable are findings from armoured mobile warfare to a Greco-Roman sword-and-shield footslog?
                You realize there is this small, (2000 year-ish) period between these two times that also had wars (with records)?
                >Populism
                Accuracy tends to be pretty popular in science, yes.
                >If you're unable to explain in your own words, you clearly don't understand the subject
                Holy shit talk about bad faith.
                Wikipedia gives a good beginner level definition, which is what you need because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (as we can see from you constantly shifting definitions).
                Why don't you give me a better definition of a rout then?

                >now just killing the enemy is maneuver warfare?
                You claimed
                >attrition is about reducing enemy capabilities through constant pressure. you can have a worse casualty ratios than the enemy and still win attritionally.
                that is manoeuvreist doctrine.
                >Nope, you can absolutely lose more men than the enemy and still win.
                I didn't say you couldn't win; I said that this is not "attrition", which is what you claimed, knowingly or not
                >Why don't you give me a better definition of a rout then?
                I already have provided a better description that adds more pertinent information than that very simplistic wikipedia definition:
                >the rout phase is also not as one-sided as people think. here and there, pockets of resistance would have formed and held up the chase, and inflicted additional casualties on the pursuers. take Waterloo for example.
                and
                >eventually the losing side takes too many casualties and breaks up
                >a general retreat occurs
                >the rate of attrition, encirclement, and elimination/capture accelerates
                >by scattering in multiple directions, the losers force the winners to choose which part of the army they'll destroy
                >eventually night falls or the pursuers are too tired to keep up

                https://i.imgur.com/5gYo8dj.jpg

                [...]
                >Why don't you give me a better definition of a rout then?
                You know what, screw that, I'm just going to tell you why you're wrong.
                A rout is a disorganized and chaotic retreat where morale is completely gone and command has totally broken down.
                They won't be inflicting casualties on pursuers because their ONLY priority is to get the frick out, often abandoning their weapons in the process.

                >They won't be inflicting casualties on pursuers
                wrong

                >Bosworth, A. B. 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander: Commentary on Books I-III. Oxford: Oxford University Press
                >cited in Keenan-Jones and Hebblewhite, 2017
                Lol bosworth only said that Macedonian casualties were hidden and that massive reinforcements were probably drawn from Macedonia. This view has been soundly rejected by the consensus and after this bosworth HIMSELF took back these claims as unfounded. Nice midwitting though.

                >t. thousands-year-old propaganda numbers are unimpeachable!!
                kek

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > in the sciences a "theoretical model" is literally "how we think the world works", moron, so yes it IS categorical
                you don't know what "epistemology" means, or you wouldn't say stupid shit like that
                lmfao a category error it’s a category error do you not understand what that means lol you dumb moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that is manoeuvreist doctrine.
                No it isn't.
                Attrition:
                Merriam-Webster:
                >the act of weakening or exhausting by constant harassment, abuse, or attack
                Oxford:
                >The process of reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure; (originally) spec. the gradual weakening of an enemy's forces by means of a sustained and unrelenting offensive. Frequent in Military contexts.
                Cambridge:
                >gradually making something weaker and destroying it, especially the strength or confidence of an enemy by repeatedly attacking it
                >I didn't say you couldn't win
                You said it was oxymoronic, meaning it contained two clauses which were mutually exclusive. The clauses it contained were "worse casualty rates" and "winning". you are either wrong, or used the word incorrectly. either way you're a moron.
                >eventually the losing side takes too many casualties and breaks up
                You've been told why this is incorrect throughout the thread.
                >a general retreat occurs
                A general retreat and a rout are two VERY different things.
                Calling a rout a general retreat is like calling an engine explosion a "rapid disassembly".
                >by scattering in multiple directions, the losers force the winners to choose which part of the army they'll destroy
                you imply here that there is a plan that is being followed. there is none.
                >wrong
                Beyond a few holdouts that have maintained some semblance of cohesion (but are still hightailing it out of here), a routing army is unable to put up more than a token resistance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Merriam-Webster:
                Dictionary definitions are very much not the same as field-specific technical terms.
                >meaning it contained two clauses which were mutually exclusive
                Once again, you are relying on inferior dictionary definition; an oxymoron can also describe an idea, concept, or philosophy; in this case it refers to the whole of this part of your argument, not just the sentence itself.

                anyway, I'm done talking to morons.

                enjoy your pop-sci myths. I suggest following up next with "80% of soldiers don't even actually want to kill the enemy!"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Dictionary definitions are very much not the same as field-specific technical terms.
                Good thing the definitions I gave also touched upon that aspect.
                >an oxymoron can also describe an idea, concept, or philosophy
                Correct. It does not, however, accurately describe my argument (as it is not an oxymoron)
                >anyway, I'm done talking to morons.
                I accept your concession.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What a resounding midwit exit lmfao. And stay out

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                One might even call it... a rout?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Didn’t even guard his rear as he got assraped!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Wrong; it RARELY happens to the side taking less casualties
                It’s literally how any charge begins. Only the attacking side takes serious casualties until contact is made and the position is overrun physically, whence it’s too late already. What a moron you are

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >aka attrition
                You don't even have to kill them, simply pushing them back with sheer mass (like with heavy cavalry) would do it.
                >aka manoeuvre
                By your apparent definition simply marching your army up to the enemy stabbing them would be considered maneuver warfare.
                >10% of the total army? yes
                10% of the formation you are attacking. I made it as general as possible so it could be applied at both the unit and army level.
                >10% of total CASUALTIES? hell no
                Possibly, if your opponent is a disorganized mob with shit morale, and you have a lot of cavalry to exploit the rout.
                >this is just one interpretation of the least unreliable reports of battle casualties that has gained popularity to the point of drowning out all other alternatives
                I wasn't talking about any specific battle. this is how these things have gone throughout history.
                > even a rout inflicts significant casualties on the pursuer
                You don't know what a rout is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                or the Greeks pursued their enemies just a little, and due to the fact that these weren’t organized campaigns and these “battles” were often tiny skirmishes by later standards, pursuit wasn’t well designed to annihilate the enemy and degrade his future warfare capabilities. Not all battles are the same as minor fighting between glorified towns.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                a rout could happen at any time for any random reason dont you think?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I didn't like the example so it doesn't count

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You’re clearly just trolling. No way anyone is this moronic. A breakthrough is not triggered by attrition. It’s triggered by enemy advancement throwing off formations and causing disruption. You’re so fricking stupid holy shit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Very few battles have been won entirely by manoeuvre.
                you also get battles where one side quickly realizes that the situation won't be going in their favor and beats a hasty retreat.
                A loss doesn't even require a battle in the first place, if one side realizes they're outmatched and cedes the objective, that's a loss as well.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >do we?
                Yes. It’s reported in every history and agreed upon by all contemporary historians that Darius turned the majority of the army and ran after the breakthrough.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I quoted the absolute lowest modern estimates for gaugamela’s figures. The absolute bottom, even lower than the actual estimated since I’m ignoring auxiliaries. And yes, the casualties I quoted don’t count captured enemy. It sounds like you’re just unfamiliar with the battle.
                >what about Greek hoplites
                Generally did not fight large battles and the figures you quoted of 3:1 casualties during the main battle are made up whole cloth.

                Generally, a battle is won by overwhelming an enemy at a particular point and leveraging that in order to roll up the line and cause a rout. Battles are almost never just “hack at each other until one side gives up”. That’s an ahistorical view and frankly a militarily impossible one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think the battle of Gaugamela is basically the prototypical rout of the ancient world. You have there a 40:1 casualty count (at least) and we know for a fact the vast majority of the killing was during pursuit. Even a generous 4:1 casualty count for the battle until breakthrough, leaves over 90% of casualties to have been incurred after disorganized retreat began

                And this doesn’t even count captured enemy, which was basically all incurred after the rout began

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but in order to lose, one must first take disproportionate casualties in the primary phase of the battle
                *cough* *cough* Cunaxa.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Any ancient battle you frickwit. This is basic knowledge.

              >and proofs
              I really would like very much to see the EVIDENCE that
              >90% of casualties happened when one side turned and ran and were cut down in the retreat.

              You are asking people to spoonfeed you an entire ancient and medieval history education, not happening. Go read yourself and you will develop the same intuition. No amount of single examples ITT will constitute "proof", and nobody has the time to do a meta analysis for your moronic ass' sake.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >may I see it
                >NO!
                uhuh yeah

                I know the answer already, frickwits, I was just leading you on to teach you why one shouldn't build speculation on top of speculation, or repeat speculation as if they're facts. it's just one theoretical model for ancient combat which we have no actual proof for. the other model is simply that the superior side inflicted a higher casualty ratio until eventually attrition AS WELL AS morale took its toll. and the casualties inflicted in the rout are nowhere near "90%". best argument we have based on Greek and Roman battles is 1/2 or 2/3rds.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the other model is simply that the superior side inflicted a higher casualty ratio until eventually attrition AS WELL AS morale took its toll.
                That doesn't measure up with the accounts and casuality figures of a lot of battles.

                We can also verify both theories with more recent battles and campaigns. It's pretty clear that a rout has the potential for massive casualty figures even today.

                tl;dr: homosexual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Roman
                what was Cannae?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Cannae was a typical and representative battle of the era
                really?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What the frick is this response? You agree with my point, but you're doing it as though you're trying to prove me wrong.
        >the rout
        That was not a factor in Archaic Greece. Note that I capitalized Archaic and also note that I didn't say Classical Greece. I trust you know the difference?

        >90% of casualties happened when one side turned and ran and were cut down in the retreat.
        objection; speculative

        You're a fricking moron who needs to read more.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >What the frick is this response?
          Seems like clinical autism from the response you got, lol.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There were insane massacres during the Peloponnesian war like killing every man woman and child in some cities.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, and the Peloponnesian War is not a part of the Archaic period precisely because of incidents like that. Not to say they never happened in the Archaic period, but it wasn't common. The Persian invasions really hardened the Greeks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fun fact: in a lot of indo-european and iranian pagan religions there were ritual battles between villages, where two groups of people would meet, fight with bare hands or sometimes simple blunt weapons until blood was drawn or one group evidently were driven back, then just stop, hug eachother and go home. Initially there was no rivalry between those groups, no real violence. It was a spectacle for the gods, because blood made the gods look after their crops. Over time the ritual degenerated into actual warfare, when next generations simply forgot what it was about.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In modern times, the Falklands War was generally the most "gentlemanly", with both the British and Argentinians sticking to agreements on Red Cross evacuation and so forth.

    the only civilian casualties IIRC were 3 or 4 Falklanders killed by accidental overshoots into Stanley town.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I still think it's funny that the military casualties for the Falklands were higher than the entire population of the islands themselves

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The population of most battlefields tend to be is lower than the casualties. Now, I know what you're saying but all you're doing is drawing an artificial distinction between what was actually being fought over.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Early second world war bongs and Italians
    The whole siege of tubrok had tons of accounts of each side going out at night laying mines/digging them up then when soldiers met eachother warned x area was filled with mines.
    The war had very low intensity until romel kicked up a storm

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Normie take but North Africa during the ww2.
    It wasn't as clean as pop-history paints it to be, but the level of excessive violence was still surprisingly low when you consider were talking about hundreds of thousands people that were trying to kill each other.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That one war where they went with 80 men and returned with 81 because they made a friend along the way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      1866 Liechtenstein Army

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That apparently might not have ever happened. It was a fun little story but there's very little actual evidence behind it.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    War is madness.
    It should be accepted as such.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Probably any civil war or wars between nobel families. When it comes to different people, religion and culture fighting, it gets bad.
    However today all wars are bad.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Israeli - Palestinian conflict, both sides fighting for their existance. But the part about "playing by the rules". No way there was such war

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The falklands war was pretty clean. Almost zero civilian casualties, and prisoners of war were returned quickly.

    Also weren’t there some wars in antiquity that were decided by single combat by the faction leaders? That would be the most sensible way to conduct warfare.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All naval battles basically are extremely clean, at least before the battle translates to land, which happens sometimes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >All naval battles basically are extremely clean, at least before the battle translates to land, which happens sometimes
        I doubt an age of sail line battle would be anything but clean, with the wood shrapnel flying everywhere and all that

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are some great examples in the thread, like the Italian Wars and post Peace of Westphalia, but in the same vein as Aztec flower wars, I submit Irish clan raiding. The rules for raiding warfare were fairly fast and loose, but the spirit of it was well understood as a cultural cornerstone of the entire island, even exporting it to Scotland and Wales with their invasions. Instances of rulers and warriors breaking the spirit of the battle became part of the oral tradition; vilifying them for all time, while praising those who fought in novel and ingenious ways. Very few died, but injuries were common, which allowed your clan's young men to get used to the blood and chaos of real warfare without dying horribly. You got to teach the next generation how to camp, move on a campaign, fight, retreat, treat wounds, manage loot, cope with defeat and savour victory. Diplomacy was all numbers-based, but not strictly quantified around material value, so hostages could be exchanged on an honour system. Your reputation was everything after the fighting was over, so a promise not to break the peace often didn't need to be backed up by harsh treaties or crippling reparations. Lastly, one hateful or stupidly stubborn leader couldn't simply force his followers to fight to the death, as the families under his clan leadership could depose him if enough of them agreed his fight was too bloody or pointless; leaving plenty of room for conflicts to end simply by agreement to remove the moron causing it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How were these raids conducted? I'm having issues finding further info on this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Largely based on personal slights, clan grudges, land disputes or simple greed; their raids usually consisted of scouting enemy territory, looking for pastures, storehouses and halls. Cattle was easy to rustle from pastureland and constituted the bulk of their haul, but lightning attacks on storehouses to carry off valuable grain (seriously, good quality grain was of immense value) was common. While cattle can be herded off without much of a fight (until you're later confronted about it), attacking storehouses usually came after; giving the enemy time to rally men. Two sides would face off and let the young men skirmish and prove their bravery by getting ever closer with slings, then javelins. The intent was to intimidate the other side into running and avoiding death, afterall. Eventually, enough wounds were sustained to convince one side to commit to an attack and then the men would actually fight. These charges were usually resolved quickly, as it doesn't take long to figure out when you're outnumbered or facing off against someone who can crush you in a fight. Boys would rush in to skirmish again to screen against a chase when the men retreated back to reform and reconsider their dedication to the attack. It might happen a few more times if both sides feel equally matched, but eventually one side would break and without cavalry, the exhausted winners would only briefly pursue them before focusing on their task at hand.

        This interpretation, however, is largely based on scant physical evidence, oral mythology/history and mostly on accounts of foreigners who fought different Celtic and Brythonic groups. Until the vikings turned up, the Irish were uniformly crushed by non-Celtic/Brythonic warriors because of their focus on this performative warfare and aversion to taking casualties (their sons, fathers, brothers, cousins etc.) without a damned good reason. Eventually they figured it out, but not soon enough to do any good.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't the Maori have "wars" that were basically just two groups of people having a dance-off?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think war must be define as deadly and violent. Competing isn't unique to maoris.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So, any bets if "Manure! I mean Manualover! I mean Manaover!" -tard was run over by a either tank or truck leaving him unable to walk and so very, very salty about it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The odds? 1:3 at least

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, I think he was preforming a campaign of attrition on a girl, trying to wear down her defenses, but then Chad maneuvered himself into her pants and broke the line that was her hymen.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All the wars where the side I like won, or the side I dislike lost badly/humiliatingly enough - obviously.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how both sides of this argument are more or less dismissing morale as an independent factor that is separate from attrition or maneuver but is influenced by them (along with a number of other things). Morale is a truly *massive* factor, especially in melee combat. There are a lot of things that can influence morale, from watching your comrades die to the enemy flanking your phalanx to rumors that the omens were bad for a battle today. It's just really hard to measure morale; you can't really measure it, until it's gone and your troops are routing. An awful lot of warfare, dating back to the primitive conflicts described in earlier posts, is about breaking the opponents' morale, their willingness to continue to fight (or at least to fight effectively).

    A couple suggestions, which cover ancient to modern warfare at the operational level:
    Archer Jones, "The Art of War in the Western World"
    John Keegan, "A History of Warfare" (warning: he really didn't like Clausewitz)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > It's just really hard to measure morale; you can't really measure it,
      Yeah, I really need to re-read my whole post from the top when I go back and edit a piece of it halfway through...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >both sides of this argument are more or less dismissing morale as an independent factor that is separate from attrition or maneuver but is influenced by them (along with a number of other things)
      I got tired of talking to smart-ass midwits way back, else I would have said, sure, and at Talavera, a bunch of Spanish infantry panicked THEMSELVES into routing, is that attrition or manoeuvre?

      Yes, morale is huge and consists of many factors that can lead to underdog upsets, some of them absolutely devastating, such as Agincourt.
      On the other hand, throughout history the majority of battles were won by the numerically superior army, or the army which could inflict more direct casualties, say with superior weaponry.

      For this reason, on balance between attrition being the cause of a rout or some unspecified other morale factor, attrition is by far the more likely. And I'll damn well take it over the alternative hypothesis:
      >100 men face off against 100 men. Side A kills 5 off Side B, losing say 3 of their own. SOMEHOW, Side A panics, routs, and Side B slays 12 more men in the ensuing panic. This is a typical Greco / Roman battle.
      Frick that lmao

      >Keegan
      I've read Keegan. He commits the sin of being both very verbose, and very humourlessly dry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >100 men face off against 100 men. Side A kills 5 off Side B, losing say 3 of their own. SOMEHOW, Side A panics, routs, and Side B slays 12 more men in the ensuing panic. This is a typical Greco / Roman battle
        That sounds far more reasonable than your moronic bullshit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hey, I thought said you were done being BTFO'd.
        >at Talavera, a bunch of Spanish infantry panicked THEMSELVES into routing, is that attrition or manoeuvre?
        Neither?
        Why the frick do you think attrition and maneuver are the only things that happen during battle?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >BTFO'd
          lol
          I simply had better things to do than waste my time on you idiots
          >Why the frick do you think attrition and maneuver are the only things that happen during battle?
          because generally it is so. according to the US Army there are three kinds of battlefield tactics; attrition, manoeuvre, and positioning, and most battles in antiquity were attritional.
          Cannae is one example of a battle won by manoeuvre.
          Thermopylae was positional.
          But the last two examples are far from typical.

          >100 men face off against 100 men. Side A kills 5 off Side B, losing say 3 of their own. SOMEHOW, Side A panics, routs, and Side B slays 12 more men in the ensuing panic. This is a typical Greco / Roman battle
          That sounds far more reasonable than your moronic bullshit.

          really?
          you find THAT more reasonable than:
          >100 men face off against 100 men. Side A kills 5 off Side B, losing say 3 of their own. Side B panics, routs, and Side A slays 10 more men in the ensuing panic, while losing 2 more. This is a typical Greco / Roman battle
          ??
          what Disney movies have you been watching to make you think the plucky underdog always wins?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >100 men face off against 100 men. Side A kills 5 off Side B, losing say 3 of their own. Side B panics, routs, and Side A slays 10 more men in the ensuing panic, while losing 2 more. This is a typical Greco / Roman battle
            That’s the same exact thing. The fact that homosexualese got killed too on your side doesn’t change much. The panic ensues because your side panicked. It often takes one guy to turn a whole group chicken. He isn’t counting the casualties. He sees his friend get hit or a big guy barreling towards him and runs away, followed soon by everyone else.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I'll remind you that we are discussing, speculatively, what could have happened based on what (little) we know of casualty counts in battles of antiquity. And from this we're hoping to determine what generally happened, ie happened most of the time. Not just that something could have happened this way, but furthermore, that it happened this way MOST OF THE TIME.

              In that context, you're saying that the balance of probability here is that it is MORE LIKELY that the side which lost fewer men in the main battle proceeded to rout, than that the side which lost more men in the main battle proceeded to rout?

              Really?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that you have still not understood how and why a rout occurs, despite dozens of posts explaining that to you. This response by you is another demonstration. You literally don’t even understand what I am trying to tell you.

                It’s also very funny that you now have dropped your pretense that 1:3 and higher ratios happen before a rout and now are claiming 5:3 as a typical case ackshyually.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you have still not understood how and why a rout occurs
                We're long past the "how" and currently debating over "why", you're the one still stuck upstream.
                I've stated for a long time now that I believe what causes the psychological terror that leads to a rout is disproportionate casualties.
                You're saying that it is more likely that a rout is primarily caused by other factors.
                I'm demonstrating to you why this isn't mathematically likely.
                To which your reply is merely:
                >You literally don’t even understand what I am trying to tell you
                I doubt that YOU understand what I'm trying to tell you, otherwise you would address the points that I write, instead of attacking my "understanding" instead.

                >you now have dropped your pretense that 1:3 and higher ratios happen before a rout
                no, I've always maintained and still do that typically, a third to a half of the loser's casualties were sustained in the main battle, and two thirds to half of casualties were sustained in the rout.
                I never said anything about the winning side, because we have very little evidence for it.
                But we do know that both the main battle and the rout inflicts casualties on the winner, sometimes significant. So I allocated 2 losses in the rout stage to the winner in both my examples.
                >and now are claiming 5:3 as a typical case ackshyually
                it's 3:5, the winner is on the left.

                Instead of merely criticising what I say, why don't you give us your idea of how the battle went? use the 100-man example to illustrate it, with numbers.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    when battles are fought away from the general populace between professional non-conscripted armies and mercenaries
    thinking european age of sail time period, although im sure there are some land wars also that meet this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >nonconscripted
      >sailors in the age of sail
      Anon, I…

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lionheart and Saladin were pretty good to each other so 3rd crusade

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      u beat me 2 it

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP image
    >place,japan.png

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not a war but there was a battle in brittany which consisted of a chivalrous contest between 60 knights

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *