|
| Thread: Greatest War Empires, Heroes, and Strategies |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
woods
Adventuring Hero
|
posted July 23, 2001 05:38 PM |
|
Edited By: woods on 23 Jul 2001
|
great leaders ????
@ichon & frank
why do u both think that
rommel
guderian
v. manstein
were great leaders ?
i think they were criminals !
dont believe everything you hear about the wüstenfuchs ( desert fox?) and tank-guderian .
v.lewinski/v.manstein was trialed on war crimes and got 18y
prison !
guderian should be trialed on war crimes but mb he was too important for the west allies at the beginnings of the 'cold war'
-woods
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2001 05:55 PM |
|
|
Yup, but Manstein was mainly convicted because of Russian pressure. No actual evidence was ever introduced to make him a War criminal.
Offcourse he had knowledge of what was going on, but had no authority to stop it. But on several occasion he actually did stop SS from doing their dirty work, once the front moved close enugh for him to be able to intervene.
Defreni
____________
|
|
woods
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2001 06:08 PM |
|
|
sorry, but....
sorry defreni , but
v.manstein was trialed by a british court (mb under the pressure of the russians.... doesnt matter; in fact the russians wanted to trial guderian, but they didnt get him... see above )
not only the ss were guilty on war crimes.... there were war crimes of the 'deutsche wehrmacht' too.... (especially in poland and russia)
no excuse....
-woods
____________
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted July 23, 2001 06:31 PM |
|
|
War is hell.
Nobody wins in war. Everybody loses something.
Here is discussion about greatest generals and their military strategies. I'm pretty sure Ichon or Defreni didn't meant that these generals were great humanists.
That's my opinion. There are always horrible things happening in war. Both axis and allied were guilty of warcrimes, however it's always the "winner" who has court for "justice" after war. I'm not defending any SS officer or soldier (or any other) of what they did or what ever reason they had to do their dirty work.
Somehow the allied victory of WW2 has become a shining effort and they that cannot be accused of anything. I myself as a Finn can see this maybe little better than some others. Finland fought partly allied with Germany. Finns didn't do all Germans wanted and in the end it was the Finns who broke the alliance.
Soviet Union basically singlehandedly fought against Germany and won if we don't count Pacific war theatre in. However as the cold war started they became "the enemy". This seem to distract people from the fact that every one of us can make horrible things especially under pressure.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Ubik
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 23, 2001 08:10 PM |
|
|
Some things wrong...
To straighten up some things, let's see...
Alexander the Great.
The guy was definitely not Albanian (Illyrian, the ancestors of the modern Albanians) but Macedon - a Greek kindgom placed in the northern part of Greece. So, Alexander was Greek.
He was surely the greatest military leader of the ancient world. The Greek army consisted of 40.000 men and it fought against armies of 1.000.000 men. Heavily outnumbered is an understatement in this case.
Alexander used with unsurpassed skills the combined arms (phalax, hoplites, light and heavy cavalry and light infantry) to eliminate the huge armies of the Great King.
His empire was divided into several kingdoms after his death. The most famous (and long-lasting) one was the kingdom of the Ptolemees (Egypt) but the others had a great impact to the whole east for more than 4 centuries.
Then, the Romans took the place of the Greeks...
Napoleon
The most brilliant military leader of the 19th century, was also a lousy politician and a very unstable man in general. If some wisdom could accomplish his fascinating military skills, surely half Europe would speak French now. But as said, he had a great way of destroying things...
The Mongols
Ichon is very kind with those - no, their armies where not that tiny. The hordes that took part in Genghis Khans great move consisted of no less than 140.000 warriors - actually the crowd they dragged together (women, slaves, servants, maidens etc.) was twice that number.
Their only goal was pillage and looting, so they never have been real conquerors. Later on, when they established their kingdoms in China and India, they became less war-like and more civilized - and soon absorbed by the huge local populations and culture.
Someon here was thinking the Huns and the Mongols where the same - not really. The "Bipedes Besties" (Huns) where not mongols. They were related to them, remotely though. You can call Mongols (they were closely related to them anyway) the Turks and the Bulgarian tribes that settled in the Balkans and the near East during the 5th - 15th century.
East Roman Empire
"Byzantine" is a term used the last couple of centuries to describe the Eastern Roman Empire (est. in the 4th century by Constantine the Great), but the people of that empire aknowledged themselves as "Romans" (mainly) and "Greeks" (secondly). The term Byzantine derives from the place where Constantinupolis (now the Turkish Istanbul - from the Greek phrase "Is tin Polin", meaning "In the City" - Polis was another way to call Constantinupolis) was build, the Greek city "Byzantion".
It is actually one of the most long-lasting empires in the history. More than 1100 years it lasted. The history of Byzantine Empire is considered part of the Greek history because a)Greeks were the main population of the Empire and b)all the emperors and their courts after the 7th century A.D. where of Greek origin.
Ichon has it wrong, they were not a nation of horsemen. The byzantine army was usually consisted of draftees and mercenaries in an equal amount, and most of the draftees were footmen. Also, the Rus (Russian) Bulgarian, Avarian, Celtic, Serbian, Viking etc. mercenaries used in great numbers by the Byzantines, were also mainly footmen.
Ok, that's it for now... maybe I'll be back later with some thoughts on the triangle Rommel-Manstein-Guderian. Just a note, though, those three were the best military leaders of the 20th century, and they were soldiers, not criminals.
Many nazis commited horrible crimes during the WW2, but that doesn't erase the fact that they were the best army the world has ever seen. And those three officers the best the world witnessed in fight the last 100 years.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted July 23, 2001 09:11 PM |
|
|
Could I agree you more Ibuk?
No I could not...
I was writing my own message with wordpad and I was going to straigth some things up.
Too late for that. You cleared and cleaned the whole table.
However here is something more...
I myself have opinion that it is almost impossible to compare different armies and their strategies if they didn't meet at battleground.
Why I did mention Alexander in my first message?
As mentioned his troops were inferior to many others but he could lead them to victory after another because his pure ability to use different troops and tactics to overhelm is enemies were unbeliavable. It was kinda sad that he died in age of 33. World could be really different if he could have lived and hold his empire together. Despite this his empire quickly died it had effect to many empires after that. The era of golden age of Hellenism was based into the Alexander's empire and later on Romans took many manners from the greeks. Roman and Byzantine couldn't have really been the great empires without the effort of Alexander the Great.
About Mongols...
I must agree in some points with Ichon. Mongols did great effort to attack and nobody could blame not having most powerful army of their time. They took over many territories but they didn't create anything that could last. However I believe that because Mongols didn't conquer Western Europe, it got an edge compared to eastern lands and empires.
We could start arguing about military leaders of WW2. I have read and studied pretty much about "the second" and have learned also greatly about Eastern Front because of my friend is enthuastic admirer of some german and soviet military leaders such as mentioned earlier. However I leave this to others because I feel it's hard to compare Rommels "personal war" and small Africa Corps' against great battles of eastern front.
BTW I have tried to find a source who did invent to use 88 AA guns against tanks anyway? Was it really Rommel?
In my opinion 88 gun (later also Tiger)was one of the deadliest weapons of WW2.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2001 10:28 PM |
|
|
The 88`s where first used by Rommel when he commanded the 9th panzerdivision during the French campaign. The brits mounted a counterattack with 30 Mathildas, and the guns the german tanks was mounted with couldnt penetrate the british armour.
Rommel saw as his only option to use the few 88`s AA he had with him as antitank gun. Very effective I must say 
As far as Napoleon was a lousy politician, well....... He succeded in holding all of Europe at bay for allmost 20 years. and that wasnt mainly by the use of force, but rather great diplomacy.
Asd for his skill as administrator, hes actually the founder of the armycorps. A unit still used by most armies this day.
And thats just the military side.
If my memory aint failing me, u can trace the modern french state back to his time, that includes education and infrastructure, both of which he greatly improved.
An anecdote goes, that when he unsuccesfull prepared to launch an invasion of Britain in 1803, he had every gunpost and small ship memorized. Every week he held an inventory as to how his preparation proceeded, Once he asked where one of 2 6 pounders had dissapeared at some obscure french village. It had by mistake been moved to another position 
As to V. Manstein. Yes he was found guilty by a british court martial. But later research has cleared him of any accusations of war crimes ( again my memory fails me, so I cant give you the correct litt.)
And my errand wasnt to give the impression that the Wehrmacht didnt participate in attrocities in Poland, Russia and Yugoslavia. But quite a few of the German officers was fiercely opposed to it, and took every opportunity to sabotage Hitlers sick plan. V. Manstein was one of those officers.
Guderian isnt even in the same league as Manstein when it comes down to a great strategic mind, all the great lines in all of Germanys succesfull campaigns was conceived by him. Guderian on the other hand was an accomplished tactician, who saw what a powerfull weapon panzer could be in an all out war.
Defreni
(Whos wreaking his mind trying to remember back a few years )
____________
|
|
TheBlackDragon
Promising
Famous Hero
Dungeon Defender/ Dragon Lord
|
|
posted July 23, 2001 10:40 PM |
|
|
What do you guys think was the best campaign of all time
Answer the qustion i think that Attilla and Joan Of Arc where good ones but not the best what do you think
____________
* Dragons Lovers are Friends Of Mine*
|
|
GoldenDragon
Adventuring Hero
Dragon Bro #2
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 03:18 AM |
|
|
I must say Attilla conquering most of Asia and his great empire what can you say?
____________
Dragon Brother
No Other
- Tyler Jackson
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 12:46 PM |
|
|
Disagreement
Ubik;
You are right about Alexander, his father Philip was king of Macedonia which Alexander inherited- some of the credit for his amry belongs to Philip who reorganized and trained the core of the army Alexander subsequently used to defeat the Persisns- however, there was no army of 1.000.000 or anywhere close to that. The whole population of Persian empire probably barely had that many men of fighting age. Alexander did beat armies many times his size twice, but most of his campaigns were against armies only twice or three times as large as his. That is still an accomplishment no doublt and Alexander was great military mind to travel through the ancient world fighting in different trerrain and against different types of foes, but he certainly never fought againt any 1.000.000 man armies!
Well, I agree his fleeting empire affected many things, but so many empires in history have- the Persian empire itself affected many things before it fell.
Napoleon
I agree he was a little unstable in his later life, but at the peak of his career and after his Italian campaigns he was not only a military genius, but totally reorganized and created the modern french state in many respects. People of the day thought he was crazy to institure some of the things he did, but where did everyone look for culture after he was gone? France... you can't say he was alousy politician. He is cast as a bad person by many people, but what made the British any better? They were arguably worse, and provoked him through their allies any chance they got. His mistakes politically were more than those militarily(blockade for instance)but one man's brilliance can only be stretched so far. No one is perfect, but some people do stand out in history.
The Mongols
Ok, there has been so much confusion about the Mongols because of two facts- first of all their enemies all reported "hordes" because they couldn't admit to being defeated be such a smaller force. Also the names that kingdoms took "Golden Horde" etc. gave the wrong impression.
An invading Mongol army was rarely larger than 60,000 mean, and those that made it as far as Europe were only 30,000. There was more than one, but they operated independently and moved very swiftly further confusing their enemies. A Mongol army could move 100's of miles in a week, far surpassing any comparable army movement of that day. The Mongols in China and Central Asia and India did have large auxilaries, but those consisted as I said earlier of mostly Chinese engineers and other units, and many Uzbeks or Turks who the Mongols used for certain operations. However, the entire Mongol fighting population was never larger than 200,000 warriors(who were spread all over the continent fighting in every invasion) and that was counting men from ages of 15 through 40. Steppe land can't support huge populations- in fact many of the so called 'Mongols' of their later splinter kingdom years were actually other asian plains peoples. Also- in counting the #' of an army- Frequently Europeans counted only the men pledged by vassals and rarely those conscripted from the countryside. The conscripts were mainly cannonnfodder, but they were still more fighters than camp followers so you could claim the #'s the Mongols defeated were even greater. It is true that soon after moving out of Mongolia they lost their ruthless and barbarian edge, and as they became more civilized they also became less disciplined and far lesser warriors. Mongols were an elite class that being so small soon disappeared within the gene pools of their conqueored lands. However, their intitial goal was not only to loot or pillage- many of their auxilaries like the Uzbeks and Turks joined on to fight for them exclusively because of that and in fact without loot or pillage were not compensated in any way until later years when Mongols couldn't fight for themselves. Ghengis wanted empire though, his recruitment of Chinese bureacrats speeks to that.
Huns and Mongols different peoples. Huns were actually cacausion though they aren't depicted that way often. Mongols were swarthy asians from inner mongolia, Huns originated further west, perhaps near Lake Baikal.
Byzantine civilization was certainly not a nation of horsemen and that isn't what I said- I said their military was organized around calvary with the Cataphract being the knockout blow in engagements. They were adept at deploying infantry and combined arms also, but frequently in the many border wars they engaged in against horse people civilizations they needed a rapid response force much quicker than marching infantry. It took awhile for Byzantine military to evolve to this state, chiefly they lost a few legions of infantry before reorganizing away from Legions and into smaller Cohorts with specialized skills. The main strength of Byzantium was at sea however. Even after losing Anatolia and Thrace, Byzantium kept ahold of some Black Sea territory and many islands and areas along the Meditaranean. The Byzantines bribed mercenaries like the Rus and many Swedish predominantly for the city guard. They were also famous for bribing amoung, Avarian, Bulgarian, Serbs, etc to attack others of their enemies without support from Byzantium so you can't really say they were in a Byzantine army. Many civils wars in neighboring lands were fostered with the profits of the Byzantine controlled sea trade to keep the balance of power in their favor.
As for German military officers and war crimes or anything else of that nature- I am not going to defend their guilt or innocence as relates to what the SS did behind the front, but if you can't seperate their military brilliance from the connotations of the greater tradgedy of wwII- how can you seperate Churchill's or Truman's? Or even Stalin? All those men did great things, and also horrible things. It just depends on the viewpoint you use to look at it from.
I agree the strategically Manstein was Guderian's superior on the theatre level in actual war(not that Guderian wasn't superor to almost all others even then), however Guderian deserves the credit for seeing ahead of his time and realizing what the new era of mechanized warfare entailed, combining all the varying elements into a strategy that simply overwhlemed and obliterated all the enemies it intially encountered. The Russian armies were totally decimated by the initial German advance, with entire major commands disappearing; but Russia is huge and the Germans advanced so quickly many Russians were left behind the lines to wreak havoc on resupply, and as fast as the Germans destroyed men and equipment at the front, the Russians, built, recruited, and recieved from US and Britain replacements at an even faster rate after the first year of the invasion. Even in the war of attrition Russian could afford for more casualties, and Russia did sustain them. For all the mistakes that Hitler made- not planning for a winter war(he thought campaign over in a few months even as France fell, except Russia many times the size of France)throwing away the 6th Army- commanding Army Group C to go south to the Caucasus oilfields instead of sweeping up and finishing of the retreating Russian army groups and capturing the vital Soviet factories- stopping Army group B's advance into Moscow, countermanding Manstein's and several other German generals orders, giving free reign to Goring's idiotic notions that wasted precious German resources...etc- you can examine why the Germans still almost won. There was a reason, and it was the German officer corp and stratigic doctrine. Even when Manstein was shipped off the Russian front and sent to France he immediatly stymied the allied efforts with even less men and equipment than he had available in Russia proportionally. When you see that the Soviets threw over 1 million men and 600 tanks into Prokorhorvoka and only managed to push the Germans back when Hitler didn't release the reinforced Panzer15th and 22nd armies because he thought it was a 'feint' well, I am glad the germans didn't win, but that doesn't change the fact that their army accomplished amazing feats on the battlefield due to the brilliance of many commanders and also intially superior training and motivation.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted July 24, 2001 01:14 PM |
|
|
Just little note...
Army of Syrians...
It was at least ten times bigger than Alexanders and some say it was almost 20 times bigger. However it's speculation to be numbers that big. I think it falls between those numbers. The army was disorganized and didn't have true leadership compared to Alexander's army.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 01:36 PM |
|
|
Nice Thread
I've enjoyed reading this thread, even though I know diddly squat about military history (not really my thing, lol!). What I'd really like to know is not the stuff that you find in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, but rather the history that these 'empires' have concealed from everyone. Were they ever forced back from areas due to small fierce pockets of resistance? I know that the Americans lost Vietnam to a smaller, less advanced army and the British also lost to the Maori tribes of New Zealand (something they never admit to). There were also wars in Australia, the settlers versus the aboriginal peoples, but nowhere in 'common' history will you find a mention of these things.
Military strategists, particularly the great ones, tend to come from empires of fairly vast populations and most of their tactical genius probably (I say this with caution because I am a novice to this stuff) arose from simply having greater weapons and larger armies... of course Gengis Khan with his 140000 troops would cause Europe to jump in fright. Any army of that size surely would.
If you think about it, it's not called Heroes of MIGHT and magic for nothing....
*smile*
|
|
Ubik
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 04:05 PM |
|
|
More facts for you
About Alexander and the Persian Army. The larger army he faced – according to his historians (ok, not an unbiased source but still the only we have) consisted of more than 1.200.000 men. Actually, we can’t take that for real – even with the numbers you gave, not being right: The population of the Persian Empire at that time was about 21 to 26 million people, so I guess the Great King could gather up more than 1 mi. at a time. He did so (not he, a predecessor) when invading Greece a couple of centuries ago: Herodotus talks about 2.200.000 people (the army should be about half that number – yes, the Persian travelled to battle with their families sometimes ) and even if it is exaggeration it can’t be totally wrong.
Recent historians believe that the force that invaded Greece had well over 600.000 warriors – and it was an invasion army, with terrible logistic and support problems etc. To defend the (all right, not in it’s peak by the time) Empire, couldn’t the Persian King gather more than those?
The fact that just 60.000 of them were Persian (=reliable and well equipped) doesn’t cancel this.
About Philip (Philipos, who means “he who is a friend of horses”, in Greek) you have absolutely right. He reorganized the Macedonian army, perfected the use of the Phalanx and stabilized the position of the Macedonian Kingdom among the other Greek states and in the Balkans in general – so his son just had to show the rest of the Greeks “who is the boss” and then (without fearing the Balkan tribes – Molossus, Thraces, Illyrians etc. would stab him in the back) lead the combined Greek forces to conquer the world.
And you are still underestimating the impact of the Greek empire (Hellenistic kingdoms after Alexander’s death) in history.
About Napoleon.
Yes, seems I underestimated the man, but if he was so capable as in politics and diplomacy as he was in military, he would have ended up as the Emperor of the whole continent and not a half-crazed man on a little island…
The Mongol armies
They weren’t that small – I can come up with some reliable source later, to provide you with a link maybe. I have read that number 140.000 and I am positive about it. Anyway, you mustn’t disagree on the rest of my points made and I don’t disagree with yours.
As for the Huns, the “lake Baikal scenario” is only one of those that exist for their heritage. Some historians believe they came from the steppe too, so I wouldn’t say “they have nothing to do with Mongols whatsoever” but “they could be distant relatives, in terms that they both came from the steppes of Asia”.
The Mongols were not one large tribe, but more smaller ones. And the Turks were not “used for certain operations”, only – they were Mongols by ancestry too
Byzantium
Here you are making some mistakes. The Cataphracts were never the mainstay of the Byzantine army – it was more a “shock unit”, to strike fast (not very fast, they weren’t the fastest horsemen with all that defensive gear) and demoralize the enemy to prepare it for the footmen raid that followed.
As for the rapid response, very early they started hiring light cavalry and cavalry archers mercenaries, to cover the needs for that, and they also deployed their own Greek light cavalry later – the “Hosarii”, from which the later Austrian-Hungarian “Hussars” derive.
Don’t forget the “Akrites”, landowners in the far borders of the empire, who fought with small armies they maintained as a kind of mercenary-border guard unit, till the “big army” comes from the other provinces.
Another mistake is about the mercenaries. As I said, the Byzantine Army (even as early as the reign of Justinian) consisted in a great portion (up to 50% - later even more) mercenaries. They used as mercenaries all kind of warrior tribes that lived in and out of the Empire. You are referring to the “Varags (Varagii)” guard, but they used Scandinavian and Rus mercenaries in the regular army as well. Also Serbian (after the 9th century) Celts-Gaul (in the very early days of the Eastern Empire) Bulgarian (during the 11th and after) Avarian (in the era of Justinian and till they got vanished-assimilated by the Bulgarian) Goths (from the 5th century to the 10th) and even Turks (Seljuks) in the 11th-13th century (before they got assimilated by the Ottoman Turks.
Definitely, the great power of the Byzantines (rated second only to their supreme diplomatic skill ) was their navy. The “Dromones” (something like a heavy galley) with the “Greek fire” (“Hygron Pyr”) were the main force in the eastern Mediterranean for many, many centuries.
For the WW2 German officers thing… I have to say that you have it (almost) all correct.
Underdogs that prevailed
Well, the Parnian (later Parthian) - a rather small nomadic tribe took a whole Hellenistic Kingdom (Parthia) with their unsurpassed skill in horse mounted fighting. The Finns almost forced the Soviet army to the knees just before the German invaded USSR in the WW2. The small tribes of the Visigoths and the Osrogoths ransacked the whole Europe and the Norsemen allthough small in numbers but great warriors, controlled half Europe in a given time.
The examples are numerous and we could go on all day. Yes, Shae, many times inferior forces win. There are many other parameters in a war than size and equipment.
|
|
thunderknight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted July 24, 2001 04:19 PM |
|
|
Ya, an interesting thread. I learned a lot of fun stuff here.
Got to disagree with u a little bit, Shae.
One of the most deadly thing about Mongol army is not its number but its ¡§SPEED¡¨ !
Mongolian army is the most deadly one on open-field battles. Though they do suck in terms of culture. 
Zhuga Liang, one of the great Chinese strategist, did not come with great power or weapon or what. Actually he served for Liu Bei, the weakest one among the Three Kingdoms. Zhuga Liang used his military as well as political talent to bring Liu Bei from nowhere to occupy 1/3 of the nation. In one of the critical battle (The War of Chebi), Zhuga Liangs army didn't have enough arrows for its archers. He can even manage to make use of the weather and the dark night to ¡§borrow¡¨ some arrows from his enemy !
Why I consider Zhuga Liang as a great strategist are:
1). He won most of his battles with fewer army and inferior power
2). He got various brilliant opponents during his life. The more famous ones include Zhou Yu and Sima Yi. By defeating these great minds, he proved his tactical superiority.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 05:12 PM |
|
|
Finland...
I have to say something about Finland because it's one of those underdogs in warhistory and I'm a finn. Here these wars are seen in patriotic fashion but I'm trying to tell "the neutral" version.
Basically Finland stopped Soviet Union forces two times during the period of 1939-1944. Soviet Union was never able to conquer Finland in that time even that their forces were superior in many battles(10 to 1 in infantry, even more when speaking about tanks, artillery and airplanes).
In Winter war Soviets were very close to victory but somehow finns kept their forces together in the Karelian front. We could say that some of the battles started with "steelrain". Example in one front wide about 2000 metres there were 420 russian artillery guns concentrated their fire on. The fire was only interrupted when soviets attacked with tanks and infantry towards the finns lines. Soviets went through the defense despite finns destroyed 72 tanks during one day in place called Summa. Finally Finland had to conditionally surrender and give away important land like part of Karelian. Finns lost about 25,000 men and 45,000 were injured. Soviet Union has announced that they lost about 220,000 men but it's clear that they lost whole lot more.
During WW2 finns attacked into Soviet Union with help of Germany and took Karelia back. Also they pushed soviets even more back to take better defensive lines. Germany wanted that Finland would attack St.Petersburg, but finns disagreed strongly because they wanted only to be able to defend themselves not to conquer Soviet Union. Some historians say that if finns would have made push to St.Petersburg and in the other fronts, "the second" could have ended in favor of Germany.
War was pretty silent for finns after the attacking period until the summer of 1944. The attack of Soviet Union on Karelian front game in surprise at least when considering how powerful it was. At the same time Germany had it's own problems (situations in Normandy and in eastern front) and finns were alone in the Karelian front. Soviet attacked with such a force (two combined armies of 23. and 21. which consisted 24 infantry divisions, some artillery brigades, 5 tank brigades, 17 elite tank regiments and 1000 airplanes). At the same time Finland had army of 400,000 men if combined all the troops in all fronts.
Soviets made their breakthrough but finns were able to slow them little bit down. However some of the troops were already in panic as massive soviet army moved towards inland of Finland. Then could be said that Finns betrayed the germans by first asking for support from Germany. Germany wanted to finns declare that Finland would fight into bitter end with them. Finlands president personally agreed and Germany gave Finns the needed antitank weapons along with some small reinforcements. This made Soviet to stop as their precious tanks were destroyed one by one in battles like Tali-Ihantala and Portinhoikka. The frontier was now calm as soviets couldn't push forward as they feared that it would take too many losses to take over Finland and Germany was still a factor.
Finlands president left his position as he had promised personally to Germany keep fighting until the end. This gave Finland chance to negotiate and peace negotiations were done in secret and Finland agreed to drive german troops from the north of Finland so they wouldn't threat Soviet Union anymore. Finland also lost Karelia again along with some other small land territories.
I woudn't say that Soviet Union was on their knees but surely finns put up a fight and survived.
I say only that the whole history after second world war could be different if Finland would have fallen in Winter war or during WW2. The cold war could have been really different story. Also if finns would have really helped Germany taking over St.Petersburg WW2 could have ended really different way.
Sometimes the weak are strong...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Ubik
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 05:44 PM |
|
|
You can say that twice...
Sha-Man
...as I said, almost. Not quite though. The soviet losses during the Finish campaign were counted as high as 450.000 men dead/injured. Actually, the Finn's defence was one of the most remarkable ones in history - side by side with Thermopylae, an example of how a tiny army, with inferior means and equipment can push a greater one really hard before they give up.
Finnland couldn't have won this war - every time a division fell, the soviets just called another to replace it from their endless reserves. But they have shown what a determined army of people who are defending their country can do.
Looks like the "big ones" never took that lesson - you saw what happened to the Americans in 'Nam and the Soviets (again) in Afghanistan.
Defreni
The '88's were tested as an anti-tank weapon before Rommel used them operationaly. But nonetheless Rommel is the greatest tactician of the WW2 in my book: His feats in France and (especially) Africa, where definitely some of the greatest of this war. As a strategist, Mannstein is definitely #1, but I can see Guderian only a little distance behind him.
And remember Georghi Zukhov (USSR) the greatest strategist in the Soviet side. I believe the greatest generals fought in the eastern front.
And, to a sidenote, IF Hitler listened to Rommel and instead invading USSR shifted a dozen divisions to the Middle East, to get over Suez and persuade the Arabs (and the Turks after it) to fight side by side with the "Wehrmacht" and (most important) provide the panzerdivisionen with oil... well, the winner of the war might have been Germany, not us. But, thank the great powers of the universe, he insisted to his paranoid plan of ridding the world from the slavs and gaining more "lebensraum"... (not to mention his fears that Stalin would strike first) and we got rid of him.
|
|
GoldenDragon
Adventuring Hero
Dragon Bro #2
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 10:41 PM |
|
|
I agree
____________
Dragon Brother
No Other
- Tyler Jackson
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2001 11:57 PM |
|
|
Well Germans gathering forces with the Turks during ww2 is certainly utopia. As for what a dozen divisions fighting in the middle east could have done, is at most dubious. They would probably have been bogged down just after conquering the Suez. This is not a question of who has the most men, but only how long ur supply lines is. The war in north africa was mostly of the logistic nature, and though Rommel had his moments, he was no where near Guderian as a tactician, just look at his victories in the desert campaign. Most of them where won near to home.
But going back to the scenario where Germany instead of launching "Barbarossa" went after the middle east oil fields.
That would have meant that Stalin would have had time to reorganize his army after the great purge of 1936. And he would have been the ultimate winner of ww2. If u doubt that u can dig into the numerous Soviet documents who was released after the Wall fell in 1989. Stalins plan was to let Great Britain and Germany bleed each other dry, and then swoop in and pick up the pieces.
And off course the finish high commander Mannerheim houldnt be forgotten. He was one of my personal heroes when I first rewieved that part of our history.
Of great strategic minds in the second world war, one distinct name is forgotten.
Yamamoto.
He was the sole reason for Japans initial succes, and though he prolly wouldnt have been able to turn the tide in the Pacific, The U.S Navy saw it as one of their greatest victories when they shot down a transport plane carrying him in 1943 and killed him.
Concerning a Persian army of over a million men invading Greece. Those information comes from Herodotus, and considering him a reliable source is like saying the legend of Croisus is the complete truth. Off course my memory is lacking again, but last time I read the notes to his "Histories" the number 100.000 men was mentioned, but frankly I dont have the patience to look it up right now ;P
Defreni
(Who is gratefull that Ichon seems to have a much better memory than me, or perhaps checks his information, so Napoleon is considered a great administrator aswell as general )
____________
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 01:05 AM |
|
|
Some more...
Ubik:
About Alexander and the Persian Army army he faced – also when the Persians went to Greece; the #'s of people involved in the invasion that you mentioned is probably correct, however, there is a huge difference in the fact of how many were actually warriors when you consider that mainly the Persians took a huge chunk of their nation along with them to invade, since there was no organization of supply etc except that they moved ships parallel to their army along the shore with many supplies on those ships. However, very many of the people that came along were there only for loot and to support the actual warriors of which maybe 1/4 or less compromised of the total number. Even the famous Roman Legions had about 10,000-15,000 camp followers on most campaigns and their number was slightly over 5,000 in a full strength legion.
Now, I think Persia could have had 1 million warriors, I actually agreed they had that many men of fighting age, but the part I disagreed with is that Alexander ever fought 1 million in a single battle which it seems you are implying.
Well, the Wars of the Didochi(Alexander's successor generals)did set the lines for many of the present days states for the first time with each terrotory a province controlled by a general, Ptolemies were the only ones left after a few years, although there were still many Hellenistic kingdoms, only Egypt was ruled by descendents of Didochi.
Well, all I can say about Napolean is that he was Emperor of the entire continent and more for a time. Perhaps if he had only fought defensively from that point on he might have stayed in power, but the British couldn't stand the continent controlled by one power since their greatest fear has always been the continnet falling, and then Britain next, plus prior to Napolean they were the greatest European power and they wanted it back. Russia didn't like it at all- but even as Napolean expaned in Europe the Russians niblled away at many territies so they might have baan satisfied if Napolean hadn't invaded, but the British goaded him into it be making an alliance with Russia- it's pretty well established now that Russia didn't plan to honor that alliance fully, but Napolean was consumed with the same fear Hitler had, that Russia would strike first. The AUstrians and Prussian's always hated french rule and raised an army every chance they got to contest it. Plus, Napolean had enemies in France, it wasn't like he ever had absolute unquestioned power even when he was Emperorer since many didn't want him as Emperorer, if he had kept ruling as a General he might have survived longer.
As for Mongol armies- you say that Uzbeks and Turks and other plains people's might as well be considered of Mongol descent? Well, that is actually false unless you just lump everyone from teh steppes together. Mongolss were many seperate tribes, but the Mongols in Mongolia that Ghengis first united by eliminating all other tribes Chieftains had their own language and were also distinct in that they were predominatly bowmen. Many of the steppe nomands could fight with bows, but often times used lances and acted more like conventional calvary or light horse. As for their #'s- I agree their were armies of perhaps 140,000 in certain areas like China where Mongols campaigned, but of that amount, a small percentage were actual Mongol warriors, many were auxilaries or other steppe people. You can know the difference between who was considered Mongol and who wasn't be seeing what territories Ghengix partitioned out after victory. The Mongols got the land, then auxilaries were sent back home. However, the armies of 30,000 I mentioned were the amount that fought in Europe it's well established as far as I know, I don't know what sources you are using, but I don't know if I'd believe an army of 140,000 could move as fast as the Mongols did. Those armies of 30,000 lived of the land, there was no supply chain for them, they took what they needed as they went, 30,000 is probably close the the max of people in a single area that could do that. Combine all those groups of 30,000 and maybe you would get just under 140,000, but when you refer to a single battle- the Mongol army of 30,000 came up against many times larger armies and would only call for aid from another army if there was trouble fighting what they encountered. Well, there never was in Europe... perhaps the Europeans were dazed by these groups moving so fast and indepentently, they never knew where to show up for the big huge battle that Europeans of those days liked. If you talk about total numbers of men in the wars, Mongols had 200,000 or so by estimates, but those 200,000 were spread around the world. Even in Europe, the first army of 30,000 to arrive ws the one which swept very quickly though Ukraine and parts of Russia, they went into Poland than cut south across Rumania, Czech, and into Bulgaria- at the same time army from Turkey was going north and then west around the Caucasus. I don't think there was ever a time- not even outside of battle were any Mongol army in Europe had 140,000 warriors. One thing different from Mongols from most armies of the time was when you count their numbers, it is usually all warriors except in the siege warfare of China and some central asia campaigns. They had to move swiftly for their style of war and any extra people slowed them down when speed was their greatest weapon.
Byzantium
I never said Cataphracts were the mainstay, I said knockout punch and that is a little different. However; I said their military was organized around calvary and I am correct in that, there were some light calvary and other horse besides the Cataphracts many employed by the Akrties you mentioned- the Cataphracts were famous for taking off their armor and using bows or whatever they needed in the situation though. Usually they were employed as a heavy horse shock troop when the Byzantines fought infantry armies- and when they fought calvary armies the Cataphracts traveled lighter and went with other auxilaries. The doctrine of the Byzantines was organized around calvary though, they never fought a war until the very end of their empire without calvary being the main element of their battle plan.
Yes, the light of Byzantine were mostly mercenaries, but weren't trusted. There were some elite units of foreign mercenaries that the Byzantines employed as the standing army, however for a long time their reserves were the men of Anatolia and Greece/Bulgaria who were citizens of Rome. Of course that changed alot in later years when there wasn't the huge population of Anatolia(slowly stripped away from Byzantuum) to draw soldeiers from, the longer the Byzantines lasted, the more mercenaries they used. The Hosarii you mentioned were mostly from Greek hinterland of Macedonia, and Bulgaria. I suppose you could count them mercenaries as any soldier that is payed is, however many of them had been citizens of the Roman Empire in one form or another for over one thousand years... I count that as making them Byzantine. Later when Avars, Goths, Slavs, etc moved through eastern europe wresting away former Roman provinces and striking into the middle east- then the Byzantines hired many of them(hired is a nice way of saying bribed) to fight other 'barbarians' on the border. Their diplomacy was fostered mostly by how rich they were, and also the legacy of Rome. Rome was famous and known even to barbaric warriors from the north- many times Barbarians chieftains were invited to the lavish court in Constantinople and shown marvels the Byzantines designed exclusively to amaze such visitors. Sometimes that tactic backfired when those chief returned to their tribes and told them of the wealth they tried to attack. The walls of Constantinople are perhaps best defensive fortifications on earth at that time. They only fell to Turks massive cannons at the very end of their Empire though they were besieged dozens of times, a few times for more than a year- reciving resupply due to their superior fleet.
Underdogs that prevailed
Parthians made many surprising entrances into military history- as far as I know it's unkown were they originated or what leaders they had, but several times they influenced events by attacking suddenly or ambushing and destroying armies moving close to their territory who were actually on their way to some important war, perhaps related to the Medes who were in that area centuries earlier? Hard to know without written records surviving except accounts of their enemies.
Hmm... the Visigoths were very large tribes not small ones. Compared to the lands of the people they fought they were always smaller it's true, but almost their whole population fought, incuding even the women sometimes. They mutated as they traveled picking up differnt types of tactics from every enemy they encountered, but they also did lose some battles and especially the Ostrogoths fought and lost a really big battle with about half their warriors dying or being captured.
Vikings and Mongols were similiar in the way that they achieved most victoies was because of the speed and ferocity of their attacks. The vikings mever fought pitched campaigns like the Mongols did, and the lands they took over were mostly already smallkingdoms whose rulers just changed ownership. They were never organized into a huge empire.
One interesting battle not mentioned between Russians and Finns was Soumussalmi- very big victory against huge odds for the Finns. Slowing the Soviet advance until more Germans materiel and reinforcements arrived and also the Finns finished mobilizing.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 02:40 AM |
|
|
Suomussalmi...
The battle Ichon is referring to is propably the one that was fought during the beginning of winter war. Suomussalmi is a town in northern part of Finland. This battle has however nothing to with germans and their reinforcements...
Russians had send already one division into the town and had captured it and one elite division was in it's way on the road. Russians had plan to cut whole country into two and attack important towns in the inland.
Finland send only handful of troops that in the end after reinforcements had arrived from other parts of Finland could have been counted as small division but at start it wasn't even close the size of division.
First the Finnish forces commanded (If I remember right, I'm not checking from this any book, was called Sillanpää =could be translated into english as bridgehead ) took the town pretty easily and only few troops ever made back from the russian division holding the town.
The 44. elite division on road was hacked first into separated groups and then destroyed one by one. Russians could never get to use their superior firepower because they were completely surrounded. After battle was over finns gathered good amount of not destroyed war equipment from the russians and this meant lot to army that was suffering of weak equipment. Russians could never start the attack in this part of country again after this battle and some battles at Kuhmo.
If we could say what was the decisive factor in that Finland was never conquered could have been the ever superior morale compared to russians. When Soviet attack in the Karelian front started in the summer of 44, finns did flee in panic at first. No army could have stayed in their positions under that attack. When the troops came more closer to inland finns reorganized and gathered their forces and spirits to able to keep up the fighting.
It was huge morale boost that whole finnish army was led by Mannerheim. I believe it was more of his ability to organize his staff and courage them to make the important decisions than his purely military strategic skill that led into outcome of that Finland kept it's independency.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
| |
|
|
