Great Commanders in History

[driftder]

Re: Great Commanders

Whoa - so I said logistics has nothing to do with success in war? Man, I can't believe the stupid stuff I say sometimes! Once I finish this post I'm getting a checkup.

If I wasn't chuckling away, I be reaching for a trusty Browning right now. Alright you did not said specifically that logistics has nothing to do with success in war, so you can save yourself a trip to the shrink. Lets pass up on the logistics angle and assume that we both agree that without proper logistics, it be like wearing 2 left boots at the same time.

If Roman domination of the seas was so total, how did Hannibal get what was left of his army back to Africa before the battle of Zama? (No references to Airbus will be accepted.) Rome may have had 'command of the sea' but no ancient navy was capable of anything like a total blockade of an entire nation's coastline over open waters. Hannibal spent much of his time in Italy trying to capture a port so he could be resupplied by sea, which suggests that it was indeed possible.

I can't find any reference as to how Hannibal and his forces from Italy manage to get to Carthage, so no comments on that. He might have got in by submarine for all I know. As for "command of the sea" and a "total blockade", there is a great difference. Perhaps I should be visiting my shrink since all I said was Rome "wrested control of the Med." - as in the Roman navy manage to kick Carthage's navy ass.

But whether or not Hannibal got supplies through by sea, don't forget the many regions and cities that defected to him on his way to Italy and during his time there. In some respects Hannibal was in what might be considered friendly territory for much of his Italian campaign. The Gauls in northern Italy alone supplied several thousand soldiers and who knows what in the way of supplies when he passed through. Large parts of southern Italy went over to Hannibal and I'm sure the people there did more than just wave flags for him.

Hannibal was not as successful at causing a mass defection, unlike what Scipio did with Massinissa and his Nubians. Southern Italy merely switch sides when Hannibal was threatening them but did not supply any troops. With Rome still undefeated and recent memory of how punitive she can get, most southern Italy cities just swear dubious loyalty.

Most of his supplies were via Spain and the Northern Alps or by looting. Some of it might have been via sea but then again without confirmation, that's just conjecture. What was known was through his campaign, Hannibal did not get a permanent sea port for resupply but somehow he manage to remain in contact - via the sea?

The barca source you sent (I've seen it before) seems a bit inconsistent. In listing the opposing forces for Zama they give Scipio 43,000 men and then say 30,000 men - in the same paragraph! So I don't know that it's much help to either of us.

Only after you pointed it out - perhaps the 13000 simply melted away in the face of Rome's might? If I can find a more reliable source I will post it when I come across any. Strange but the old book sources are more in-depth then the internet types and less full of personal skews.

Finally, it is true that Hannibal had a high proportion of fairly raw, inexperienced troops, but his classic encirclement strategy depended for its success on the presence of large bodies of relatively weak troops in the centre, who would at best be able to just hold their own against the Romans, if not giving way slightly, while the flanks closed in.

He did not have his cavalry at that time, his own supplies and allies were shaky and Scipio had spent time since his first encounter with Hannibal training his troops to counter Hannibal's tactics. If both had been equally match, my money would have been on Hannibal.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

Here's one I like:

"The amateurs discuss tactics. The professionals discuss logistics." Napoleon.

FYI I'm going with tactics.

More to come, once the boss stops looking over my shoulder.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Great Commanders

Here's one I like:

"The amateurs discuss tactics. The professionals discuss logistics." Napoleon.

FYI I'm going with tactics.

More to come, once the boss stops looking over my shoulder.

But any discussion about military history that doesn't look at logistics is almost bordering on disingenuine.

You cannot do it - the most significant of all analysis includes it as it is the singular most important issue. Countries have been wiped off maps due to poor logistics, commanders have made and broken their reputations based on it.

The above mantra is very true, "amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics". Thats why on any given military forum you can work out who the kids are straight away as they are focussed on technological issues, eg the biggest calibre, the fastest jet, the fastest missile, million man armies, the "biggest" tank etc..... They invariably talk about those things as they have almost no comprehension of the fact that its logistics that determines the outcome.

It's a bit like discussing a racing cars engine and ignoring the fact that it's missing the fuel tank. it may be the fastest car on the track, but if you forget to make the fuel tank big enough, or you forget to bring fuel it will also be the fastest one to stop.

The other military and management maxim is: PPPPPP. In short: Prior Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance. Logistics is very much part of that process to prevent the last 3 words in the statement happening.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

But any discussion about military history that doesn't look at logistics is almost bordering on disingenuine.

You cannot do it - the most significant of all analysis includes it as it is the singular most important issue. Countries have been wiped off maps due to poor logistics, commanders have made and broken their reputations based on it.

The above mantra is very true, "amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics". Thats why on any given military forum you can work out who the kids are straight away as they are focussed on technological issues, eg the biggest calibre, the fastest jet, the fastest missile, million man armies, the "biggest" tank etc..... They invariably talk about those things as they have almost no comprehension of the fact that its logistics that determines the outcome.

It's a bit like discussing a racing cars engine and ignoring the fact that it's missing the fuel tank. it may be the fastest car on the track, but if you forget to make the fuel tank big enough, or you forget to bring fuel it will also be the fastest one to stop.

The other military and management maxim is: PPPPPP. In short: Prior Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance. Logistics is very much part of that process to prevent the last 3 words in the statement happening.

My intent in writing the line "FYI I'm going with tactics" was simply lighthearted self-deprecation, i.e. "I'm an amateur." In fact, I totally agree with your assessment of the overriding importance of logistics, and I find the subject completely fascinating.

My particular interest is Roman military history, in case you hadn't guessed, but my chief regret and constant source of frustration is that so little is known of the logistical arrangements of the legions - or that of any ancient armies, for that matter. (What about Alexander, for example? Who were his supply wonks and how the h*** did they do it?) And what I'd give to have been a fly on the wall when those now-forgotten men who kept the Roman army going into Britain fed, armed and clothed were told to draw up their plans!

I also enjoy playing wargames but again am frustrated by their complete emphasis on the strategic or tactical at the expense of logistics. Every time I move a formation from one front or one flank to another, nagging in the back of my mind are questions such as "yeah, but who's getting them their food and ammunition?", "how many troops do they have to split away to guard the supply columns?"

Or "where are they going to put the latrines?" and (hopefully an unrelated question) "where are they getting their fresh water?"

Don't get me wrong: I love the strategy and tactics as much as anyone. But I wish someone would come out with a simulation that puts you in the position of chief logistician, or at least elevates the question of logistics to the point that it affects play even one-half as seriously as it does in real life.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

I can't find any reference as to how Hannibal and his forces from Italy manage to get to Carthage, so no comments on that. He might have got in by submarine for all I know. As for "command of the sea" and a "total blockade", there is a great difference. Perhaps I should be visiting my shrink since all I said was Rome "wrested control of the Med." - as in the Roman navy manage to kick Carthage's navy ass.

He got back to Carthage by sea. Your barca source has it. Also, he apparently was resupplied by sea at least once during the campaign. And Carthage got an army into Sicily at one point after Rome "wrested control of the Mediterranean" (p***ing Hannibal off mightily, as he had been squawking for reinforcements to no avail).

Hannibal was not as successful at causing a mass defection, unlike what Scipio did with Massinissa and his Nubians. Southern Italy merely switch sides when Hannibal was threatening them but did not supply any troops. With Rome still undefeated and recent memory of how punitive she can get, most southern Italy cities just swear dubious loyalty.

Whatever their motivation may have been, not even the most cynical southern Italian town council, having 'switched' to Hannibal's side, would then have been in any position to refuse a request/demand for supplies. At least until a Roman army was nearby. If Hannibal had any difficulty in securing supplies, he would have looked first to even the shakiest of his southern Italian 'allies.'

BTW, it's Numidians, not Nubians.

Most of his supplies were via Spain and the Northern Alps or by looting. Some of it might have been via sea but then again without confirmation, that's just conjecture. What was known was through his campaign, Hannibal did not get a permanent sea port for resupply but somehow he manage to remain in contact - via the sea?

He didn't get a permanent port? What about Tarentum? And I'm sure there must have been others, at least sporadically. Further research required.

Strange but the old book sources are more in-depth then the internet types and less full of personal skews.

Agreed. Books are always better. Wish I could find my Livy!

If both had been equally match, my money would have been on Hannibal.

And if Hannibal had outnumbered Scipio, even more so, right? See above, ad nauseam...

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

BTW, are we getting massively off-topic here or what??

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Great Commanders

My intent in writing the line "FYI I'm going with tactics" was simply lighthearted self-deprecation, i.e. "I'm an amateur." In fact, I totally agree with your assessment of the overriding importance of logistics, and I find the subject completely fascinating..

My apols - I misread the attempt at self deprecation.. There's nothing wrong woth being an amateur - my frustration kicks in when the "technological fundamentalists" get fixated on platforms and without any comprehension of what is required to get the whole thing to work. A good example being the thread on the PLAN Aircraft Carrier.

A good micro example of how logistics can fail and dramatically contribute to collapse is "Rorkes Drift". - from there on it just gets bigger and uglier...

 

[driftder]

Re: Great Commanders

BTW, are we getting massively off-topic here or what??

oh most assuredly but what the heck, as we are enjoying it. If, big if unless some one verify it (any takers?)Tarentum was under Hannibal's control, how long did he kept it and why did he lost it? Interesting eh? Guess I will need to re-read that particular bit.

And don't go hankering to be a army logistician - trust me, your head will go bald from the hair pulling and not to mention the form filling. That's in peace time and if the balloon goes up, as the Brits call it - well good luck matey and I will be waiting for my bullets and beans, thank you :.

Until then, let's call it quits while we are ahead - won't want to get a shut n lock down from the mods .

 

[driftder]

Re: Great Commanders

But any discussion about military history that doesn't look at logistics is almost bordering on disingenuine.

You cannot do it - the most significant of all analysis includes it as it is the singular most important issue. Countries have been wiped off maps due to poor logistics, commanders have made and broken their reputations based on it.

The above mantra is very true, "amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics". Thats why on any given military forum you can work out who the kids are straight away as they are focussed on technological issues, eg the biggest calibre, the fastest jet, the fastest missile, million man armies, the "biggest" tank etc..... They invariably talk about those things as they have almost no comprehension of the fact that its logistics that determines the outcome.

It's a bit like discussing a racing cars engine and ignoring the fact that it's missing the fuel tank. it may be the fastest car on the track, but if you forget to make the fuel tank big enough, or you forget to bring fuel it will also be the fastest one to stop.

The other military and management maxim is: PPPPPP. In short: Prior Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance. Logistics is very much part of that process to prevent the last 3 words in the statement happening.

Weapons talk is always more "sexy" then dull, plain old logistics. It's something like wearing the red beret on a night out to impress the ladies, and no please don't knife me for that - just making a comparison that's all. Until they been on the sharp end, and experience how a warm meal, good socks and clothing affects morale e.g. try walking for a whole in damp socks and boots that don't have a chance to dry out urgh!! - until then, guess weapons talk and brag will take centre stage.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

Weapons talk is always more "sexy" then dull, plain old logistics. It's something like wearing the red beret on a night out to impress the ladies, and no please don't knife me for that - just making a comparison that's all. Until they been on the sharp end, and experience how a warm meal, good socks and clothing affects morale e.g. try walking for a whole in damp socks and boots that don't have a chance to dry out urgh!! - until then, guess weapons talk and brag will take centre stage.

At some Roman outpost in Britain - Vindolanda I think - a few years back they discovered some letters written by members of the garrison. One was from a soldier to his parents in Egypt, thanking them for the socks they'd sent him.

I'm sure being an army logistician would be a permanent headache, but I still hanker for a computer game that would at least emphasize the more satisfying aspects.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

My apols - I misread the attempt at self deprecation..

No need whatsoever to apologize, by the way - it didn't even occur to me to be bothered. I recognize when I make these little remarks that they're often capable of being read more than one way.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

If, big if unless some one verify it (any takers?)Tarentum was under Hannibal's control, how long did he kept it and why did he lost it? Interesting eh? Guess I will need to re-read that particular bit.

Again I'm going with the barca source - they say he took everything but the citadel in Tarentum. And according to the map they provide, when he finally left for Africa he left from somewhere in the same vicinity, suggesting that once he took the place he never did actually lose it until he quit Italy for good.

This is great stuff - I'm learning more about the 2nd Punic than I've ever known before.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Re: Great Commanders

In my books it would Sir Julian Byng, and his ever capable Deputy Sir Arthur Currie and their masterful taking of Vimy Ridge, April 1917. In fact the template for planning and rehersal made the Canadian Corps the best. most feared and repsected Commonwealth shock troops that the germans faced. In fact, their reputation was so great that before the Battle of Amiens in 1918, the canadians sent a wireless section and 3 battalions to the Ypres sector to confuse the Germans as to the sector of attack.

Rommel was a tactician, not a strategist, One can see the weakness he had when he forward positioned what ever assets he had on D-Day, totally discounting Allied Naval Bombardment and Air Superiority.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Great Commanders

In my books it would Sir Julian Byng, and his ever capable Deputy Sir Arthur Currie and their masterful taking of Vimy Ridge, April 1917. In fact the template for planning and rehersal made the Canadian Corps the best. most feared and repsected Commonwealth shock troops that the germans faced. In fact, their reputation was so great that before the Battle of Amiens in 1918, the canadians sent a wireless section and 3 battalions to the Ypres sector to confuse the Germans as to the sector of attack.

Rommel was a tactician, not a strategist, One can see the weakness he had when he forward positioned what ever assets he had on D-Day, totally discounting Allied Naval Bombardment and Air Superiority.

I suppose this is where parochialism can blur objectivity if not used in context.

Monash (australian) was the first general to implement combined arms (air, tanks, troops and arty) at Hamel. He was also part of the planning group for Amiens. Ther Germans used to refer to the Australian Divisions as englands "shock troops" and even tried to create a propoganda leaflet based around the fact that Australians were used as shock troops and cannon fodder to protect their (Gt Britain) own.

Rommel said that he could have taken Nth Africa if he'd had the Australian 9th Div on his side.

be that as it may, the Canadians were magnificent at Vimy Ridge.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Re: Great Commanders

I suppose this is where parochialism can blur objectivity if not used in context.

Monash (australian) was the first general to implement combined arms (air, tanks, troops and arty) at Hamel. He was also part of the planning group for Amiens. Ther Germans used to refer to the Australian Divisions as englands "shock troops" and even tried to create a propoganda leaflet based around the fact that Australians were used as shock troops and cannon fodder to protect their (Gt Britain) own.

Rommel said that he could have taken Nth Africa if he'd had the Australian 9th Div on his side.

be that as it may, the Canadians were magnificent at Vimy Ridge.

GF, Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels
In all honesty the Canaidains would always have an easier time of things because you Aussies would soften up the germans ( The Somme, Passchendaele) If the Australians had not taken Pozieres, and the Australians had not pushed so hard at the Passch, then the CEF would not have had a snowballs chance in hell. As a Canadian, I sometimes have to fight for the recognition that we were always lumped together with the British when history, either The Great War, or the Second World War histories are discussed. I do apologise, MOnash was a great innovator, and the victories on the western front owe alot to his genius and drive. I do think though that the historical fact was that in late 1917 and 1918, the last troops worth a damn on the Allied side were the Australians and canucks, even the AEF was no where near ready to make a significant contribution to the war on a grand scale, it was up to the Commonwealth Corps to make victory possible.

Cheers, and you made some good points in your response

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Great Commanders

I do think though that the historical fact was that in late 1917 and 1918, the last troops worth a damn on the Allied side were the Australians and canucks, even the AEF was no where near ready to make a significant contribution to the war on a grand scale, it was up to the Commonwealth Corps to make victory possible.

I take great delight in reminding my american friends that:

1) The Americans were trained by the Australians at Haigs and Plummers insistence.

2) That Pershing was told that he either put his troops under Australian command - or he would be sent home.

3) That the July 4 attack date was Monash's use of psychological warfare - he knew that the Americans would be all fired up if they attacked on Independance Day.

4) That the Americans only got to play significantly at Amien after they demonstrated capability at Hamel. I don't think I've ever seen any reference to Australian command in any of the American reference works on the AEF.

The poor old Kiwis tend to get swallowed up in history as well. Although we did get to fight together as an ANZAC division in the end. Another group who didn't get proper accolades were the Indians at Tobruk and also under Wingate (and he gets treated very shabbily) .

The ANZACs and the Canucks have always had to fight for recognition. In some history books on the Great War you even wonder if we were there sometimes....

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Re: Great Commanders

I take great delight in reminding my american friends that:

1) The Americans were trained by the Australians at Haigs and Plummers insistence.

2) That Pershing was told that he either put his troops under Australian command - or he would be sent home.

3) That the July 4 attack date was Monash's use of psychological warfare - he knew that the Americans would be all fired up if they attacked on Independance Day.

4) That the Americans only got to play significantly at Amien after they demonstrated capability at Hamel. I don't think I've ever seen any reference to Australian command in any of the American reference works on the AEF.

The poor old Kiwis tend to get swallowed up in history as well. Although we did get to fight together as an ANZAC division in the end. Another group who didn;t get proper accolades were the Indians at Tobruk and also under Wingate (and he gets treated veryu shabbily) .

The ANZACs and the Canucks have always had to fight for recognition. In some history books on the Great War you even wonder if we were there sometimes....

Thank you for your reply, Sir Arthur Currie also had to fight with Haig, At the
Hieght of the Third Battle of Ypres ( Passchendaele) Currie was aked by Haig to take the Field.

On Nov. 6, 1917 Canadian troops captured Belgium’s Passchendaele ridge, ending a gruelling offensive that had begun on July 31, 1917. The Battle of Passchendaele is remembered for its atrocious conditions, heavy casualties and Canadian valour. Canadians, instrumental in securing victory, earned a total of nine Victoria Crosses for their courage. In this CBC Radio documentary marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele, survivors describe feeling a sense of pride at having succeeded where those before them had failed.

*
Heavy rain and prolonged shelling turned the entire battlefield into a quagmire. Trenches could not be dug and planes were often grounded as a result of the extreme conditions. British commander Sir Douglas Haig looked to the Canadians to bring his ill-fated campaign to some sort of conclusion. In October Allied forces were bolstered by the arrival of the Canadian Corps under the command of Gen. Arthur Currie.


• General Currie was reluctant to enter his troops into the Passchendaele offensive, predicting 16,000 casualties. He was overruled but insisted he be given time to reorganize before proceeding. This time was used to improve roads and drainage systems, build duckboards to traverse the mud and platforms for artillery.
• Hauntingly close to Currie’s prediction, 15,654 Canadians were killed or wounded.

Also Currie fought to keep the CEF together during the German Offensive in March 1918. Thank goodness he did, the germans did not attack the Canadians in their sector, because it was too toughly defended.

I have to admit that there is also one other formation that gets short shrift by the historians, namely the South Africans. I have read of the ANZAC Corps and admire the pluck and real fighting ability that the Australians and New Zealanders showed. Perhaps the similarity in Canadian and Australian Casualty returns for the War 60,000 dead is a testimanet to our respective countries. But the similiarity ends there. There is a distinct Bias, at least after the War by historians because they viewed the Canadians as "Fochs Pets" and did not appreciate that we were building our own identity as a seperate country, no longer being dependent on England for direction.

• Australia had a smaller population
• Australia did not execute Shell Shocked troops like we did
• Australia did not have conscription like Canada had to resort to in 1918

Other than that, Canadian and Australian troops both had contempt for the way the war was being run, and we also had a contempt for discipline behind the lines.

You are making good points, and I compliment you on your knowledge.

Cheers

 

[driftder]

Re: Great Commanders

....
• Australia did not execute Shell Shocked troops like we did
..........

Other than that, Canadian and Australian troops both had contempt for the way the war was being run, and we also had a contempt for discipline behind the lines.

You are making good points, and I compliment you on your knowledge.

Cheers

surprise...shell-shocked troops were executed during battle? any instances that can be certified? and what are the consequences after? were the executioners ever punished?

I asked because I find it strange to execute/punish those who had gone where I dare not step.

 

[veronius]

Re: Great Commanders

surprise...shell-shocked troops were executed during battle? any instances that can be certified? and what are the consequences after? were the executioners ever punished?

I asked because I find it strange to execute/punish those who had gone where I dare not step.

Just off the top of my head it certainly seems possible that shell-shocked soldiers could have been executed in the heat of battle on the orders of officers who simply thought they were cowards, refusing a direct order to advance, etc. At least in the days before "shell-shock" was understood as a legitimate reaction among some troops to the incredible stress of battle.

 

[driftder]

Re: Great Commanders

Just off the top of my head it certainly seems possible that shell-shocked soldiers could have been executed in the heat of battle on the orders of officers who simply thought they were cowards, refusing a direct order to advance, etc. At least in the days before "shell-shock" was understood as a legitimate reaction among some troops to the incredible stress of battle.

really....I fail to understand how executing tired, combat weary soldiers help to boost morale or instill bravery to fight harder. perhaps those who order such executions should be given infantry gear and lead by example in the face of the enemy's fires? preferably leading a frontal assault at bayonet point against a hardened position?

pardon my sarcasm but sometimes such stupidity really get me going.