Post by lexkx on May 5, 2013 12:07:47 GMT -5
Ranger Veron is right, Sun Tzu's Bing Fa is considered invaluable. Keep in mind, it's a brilliant take on the six Chinese warfare principles. There are many warriors and philosophers with their own opinions about these principles. Certain eras and worldviews would not utilize it.
I, unfortunately, need to study tactics. I have an immense intercontinental war to plan that requires not just knowing who's attacking and who's winning, but how different sides and factions will use geography, spies, revenge, and foreknowledge to their advantage. (One kingdom will fall into a dual-sided civil war, which will drag out the rest of the war. I do know that.) Tactics today are very different from tactics back in the day (even though this is medieval fantasy on another planet). Who values/uses guerrilla warfare, the use of machines (catapults, movable towers, etc.), when an alliance with your neighbor is detrimental to long-range plans, supply trains vs. foraging/raiding--lots of different variables. War takes place on several different levels (foot soldier vs. cavalry vs. war commander vs. political leadership), and it's the higher up stuff I need to study. I have to devise three long-range plans for the same war--one from the attacking side, one from the defending side, and one from one of the civil war factions (the other civil war faction's long-range plans aren't relevant, fortunately). The civil war faction's plans are making more sense as I look into the matter more, but they are initially rejected by the defense because they sound crazy. (They are also based on foreknowledge, so some of that rejection is understandable.)
Because I have other things on my plate right now, I have set aside the question of "what to study" until I can concentrate on it, so I don't have any particular sources I'm scouting out. The US Civil War is a great source for a weird mix of modern weapons and old school tactics. What worked and what didn't is a source of much study, so that's a good start. Who or when else? Not the Crimean, not the US Revolutionary War, not the Irish... OH! Charles "Chinese" Gordon was a colonel in the British army when he was sent to China in the 1860s to help train the Chinese army and defeat an insurrection. He's a good one to study. Hannibal and Marcus Aurelius are always worth studying. I like Charlemagne, and intend to do a little primary source digging when I get around to researching this. One interesting source of study is the Bible. There's a curious story from WWII about a British officer whose troops couldn't attack Michmash in the Holy Lands, so he got out his Bible, studied I Sam 14, and sent a small raiding party using Jonathan ben Saul's old trick to infiltrate. Plenty of military strategy in there, if you look for it.
Thanks, Bethany.
I, unfortunately, need to study tactics. I have an immense intercontinental war to plan that requires not just knowing who's attacking and who's winning, but how different sides and factions will use geography, spies, revenge, and foreknowledge to their advantage. (One kingdom will fall into a dual-sided civil war, which will drag out the rest of the war. I do know that.) Tactics today are very different from tactics back in the day (even though this is medieval fantasy on another planet). Who values/uses guerrilla warfare, the use of machines (catapults, movable towers, etc.), when an alliance with your neighbor is detrimental to long-range plans, supply trains vs. foraging/raiding--lots of different variables. War takes place on several different levels (foot soldier vs. cavalry vs. war commander vs. political leadership), and it's the higher up stuff I need to study. I have to devise three long-range plans for the same war--one from the attacking side, one from the defending side, and one from one of the civil war factions (the other civil war faction's long-range plans aren't relevant, fortunately). The civil war faction's plans are making more sense as I look into the matter more, but they are initially rejected by the defense because they sound crazy. (They are also based on foreknowledge, so some of that rejection is understandable.)
Because I have other things on my plate right now, I have set aside the question of "what to study" until I can concentrate on it, so I don't have any particular sources I'm scouting out. The US Civil War is a great source for a weird mix of modern weapons and old school tactics. What worked and what didn't is a source of much study, so that's a good start. Who or when else? Not the Crimean, not the US Revolutionary War, not the Irish... OH! Charles "Chinese" Gordon was a colonel in the British army when he was sent to China in the 1860s to help train the Chinese army and defeat an insurrection. He's a good one to study. Hannibal and Marcus Aurelius are always worth studying. I like Charlemagne, and intend to do a little primary source digging when I get around to researching this. One interesting source of study is the Bible. There's a curious story from WWII about a British officer whose troops couldn't attack Michmash in the Holy Lands, so he got out his Bible, studied I Sam 14, and sent a small raiding party using Jonathan ben Saul's old trick to infiltrate. Plenty of military strategy in there, if you look for it.
Thanks, Bethany.
