Some ideas on military campaigns.

[A.Mookerjee]

I was reading a very informative book by Dorling Kindersley, called "War", procured by me recently. To the willingly perceptive, towards this book, it offers the perception the chance to draw conclusions. The conclusions that I have come to are as follows. Let me begin, by saying that no nation in the world, ever, in the past, has been able to keep her position as a great military superpower. It strikes me, at the moment, that when a military superpower begins to take advantage of military paramountcy, in any manner, also in other spheres of influence, such as trade, etc, then that sphere of influence, is the cause of downfall, of the nation, from greatness. To digress a bit, what was the cause of the British leaving India? The British were under the assumption, that India is not a nation, and the practice 'divide and rule', should be used when ruling India. The divisions between Hindus and Muslims, in the sub-continent became so great, that The British could not have ruled India, after 1947, if they wanted to. The subcontinent had become ungovernable, when the British left. Hence, the abdication of the British Crown from India, had as a precursor, the policy of the British Crown in India.
Similarly, to the point, military campaigns followed by loosing armies, have been the cause of their loss. Napoleon had used his military tactics and strategies well, until he fought in Russia, using the same tactics. The Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, fought the Soviet Union, but were on the loosing end against the NATO coalition. They had perhaps, presumed. that NATO would be defeated similarly, as well.
If the best laid intentions can be ineffectual in winning a battle, then all a soldier can do, is fight, and pray. Winning and loosing are not in the hands of armies, but of destiny. All the greatest armies in the world, had this weakness, which is, their strength. It is in the conduct of war, that one has a chance of redemption. I will add to my ideas at a later date.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Similarly, to the point, military campaigns followed by loosing armies, have been the cause of their loss. Napoleon had used his military tactics and strategies well, until he fought in Russia, using the same tactics. The Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, fought the Soviet Union, but were on the loosing end against the NATO coalition. They had perhaps, presumed. that NATO would be defeated similarly, as well.

Napoleon's error wasn't a tactical one, in fact he won nearly every battle on his way into Russia, his error was strategic. He didn't account for the weather, had untenable lines of supply (woe betide those who ignore logistics), no exit strategy, and had an unreasonable operational timetable.

However, you are right in noting the role hubris/"victory disease" can play in an army's defeat. It cuases commanders to take excessive risks, underestimate their enemies, etc. Refer to Imperial Japan in early-mid World War II.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

Napoleon's error wasn't a tactical one, in fact he won nearly every battle on his way into Russia, his error was strategic. He didn't account for the weather, had untenable lines of supply (woe betide those who ignore logistics), no exit strategy, and had an unreasonable operational timetable.

However, you are right in noting the role hubris/"victory disease" can play in an army's defeat. It cuases commanders to take excessive risks, underestimate their enemies, etc. Refer to Imperial Japan in early-mid World War II.

Those in the know, say that Russia had a superior military, and strategy, to Napoleon. This is mentioned in a book review of the 'Economist'' newspaper, and the book is regarded highly, though I don't remember the name of the author, nor the book.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Those in the know, say that Russia had a superior military, and strategy, to Napoleon. This is mentioned in a book review of the 'Economist'' newspaper, and the book is regarded highly, though I don't remember the name of the author, nor the book.

Which is why the Russians performed so well during the Napoleonic war right? The Grande Armee enjoyed a superior tactical & operational doctrine, organizational structure, more coherent leadership and by and large superior - read revolutionary - motivation and morale. Strategically the Russian's performance was pretty poor as well; 3 failed coalitions and numerous defeats at the strategic level. From Austerlitz to Freidland to Smolensk to Borodino the Russians were not able to beat the French, the Russian winter did.

 

[burntmoon]

Britain ends colonial rule in India

I was reading a very informative book by Dorling Kindersley, called "War", procured by me recently. To the willingly perceptive, towards this book, it offers the perception the chance to draw conclusions. The conclusions that I have come to are as follows. Let me begin, by saying that no nation in the world, ever, in the past, has been able to keep her position as a great military superpower. It strikes me, at the moment, that when a military superpower begins to take advantage of military paramountcy, in any manner, also in other spheres of influence, such as trade, etc, then that sphere of influence, is the cause of downfall, of the nation, from greatness. To digress a bit, what was the cause of the British leaving India? The British were under the assumption, that India is not a nation, and the practice 'divide and rule', should be used when ruling India. The divisions between Hindus and Muslims, in the sub-continent became so great, that The British could not have ruled India, after 1947, if they wanted to. The subcontinent had become ungovernable, when the British left. Hence, the abdication of the British Crown from India, had as a precursor, the policy of the British Crown in India.
Similarly, to the point, military campaigns followed by loosing armies, have been the cause of their loss. Napoleon had used his military tactics and strategies well, until he fought in Russia, using the same tactics. The Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, fought the Soviet Union, but were on the loosing end against the NATO coalition. They had perhaps, presumed. that NATO would be defeated similarly, as well.
If the best laid intentions can be ineffectual in winning a battle, then all a soldier can do, is fight, and pray. Winning and loosing are not in the hands of armies, but of destiny. All the greatest armies in the world, had this weakness, which is, their strength. It is in the conduct of war, that one has a chance of redemption. I will add to my ideas at a later date.

I have to agree to a certain extent that all great military powers eventually will lose their dominance in both the civilian/culture and military control of other nations/peoples.
But to say that is the main reason for the end of British rule in the Indian sub-continent is not the way that I read my history of those times. After the end of WWII both Britain and France were forced by America to start giving up on being colonial powers if they wanted American help in the rebuilding of their nations.
America believed that only by granting independence to nations would these nations be opened up to international trade which means big gains for the American economy and country.
That those colonies are no longer under the control of just one foreign country was all important to America because if you look at America's main reason for getting involved in both world wars of the 20th Century was the expansion and continuation of America's international trade which continues to today's modern times. And yes, even America being pulled into WWII by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the result of many years of political conflict between Japan and America, and most of the western world, was for control of trade and resources from China and other parts of Asia, including India.

 

[Chrisious]

The Battle of Stamford Bridge may fit in there, at least given it marked the beginning of the end of the Viking era. The Viking invaders were trounced and allowed to return home heavily defeated.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Unlikely. What Kindersley is arguing is that the use of military force will result in the end of military greatness.

In the case of the vikings, although 1066 marked the end of the viking era, that defeat wasn't the cause of the end (rather it was religion and mainstreaming of nordic culture).

I disagree partly with what Kindersley mentions. I postulate 2 reasons for downfall.

1) over-expansion (either in military or economics).

Alexander stretched too far (and when he died, no one could hold it together)
Rome stretched too far (they couldn't hold the outlying tribes and eventually broke apart)
Mongols stretched too far (and when the 2 khans died, no one could hold it together)
Napolean and Hitler stretched too far (and couldn't hold it after active resistance appeared)
Imperial Great Britain stretched too far (they couldn't hold the US either)

2) Isolation

Ancient Greece, Egypt and China are examples where dynasties became obsolete after self-isolation.

I agree with Burntmoon. Hegemony has no permanence but it can still last a long time.

 

[Locarnus]

are we talking about the downfall of civilizations, or the special case of military disasters?

for the former, you should read
Guns, Germs and Steel
and Collapse
both from Jared Diamond, to name just two out of hundreds related to that, for a short introduction

and thats a huge topic
@weasel1962:
overexpansion, isolation could be described as specific, intermediate causes
specific, because it is restricted to a certain area,
and intermediate cause, because the "not harmful" dosis depends on lots of other factors
I agree that it is one of the most obvious, but well, its only an intermediate one.

for military disasters, its not as large a topic (naturally, because its part of the former), but still massive

about AStan: The insurgents are on the losing end?

I think we should stick to military campaign here, for keeping focus.