If one wants to win a battle...
Flexibility is more important than numbers. Technology also helps.
A number of battles, such as the Greeks versus the Persians, have resulted in the supposedly obvious winner crushing itself with its larger numbers. (The same happened at Agincourt.) Too many ships/troops/horses can actually create a self-imposed blockade: no way out.
The ability to alter plans continually also helps, such as Drake and Howard continually changing tactics towards the Spanish Armada.
RADAR helped tremendously with the Battle of Britain or Channel War though Dan and Peter Snow point out that HOW the information about planes was handled and distributed was just as important. Flexibility again.
The point here may seem obvious. But the Spanish Armada was led by a good commander on land up against a good commander on land and a totally experienced maverick commander (Drake) on sea. Sidenote: The hopelessly stupid Charge of the Light Brigade was led by a not-good commander who was only there due to status. He survived. Almost all his men died.
The history of the Roman Republic and Empire was lots and lots of people figuring out this point too late. Boudicca did a great deal of damage and destroyed about three cities before encountering the Roman army in a final battle. And the Celts didn't stand a chance. The disciplined-at-all-costs Roman army didn't mind taking the defensive, if that meant they had the advantage. They could wait out anyone.
Interestingly enough, the most evenly matched face-to-face battle I learned about this past winter was the Battle of Hastings, Saxons against Normans, 1066. Both commanders were intelligent, experienced, tough, willing to fight with their troops, and both were invested in tight smart maneuvers. King Harold Godwinson lost, in part, because, well, he died--but also because his troops broke formation towards the end of the day. But the battle was an even match for most of that day.
Beware going too far into enemy territory. The South learned this truth at Gettysburg. Likewise, the Jacobites at Culloden lacked food supplies and had to hunt up food before the battle.
True, Drake and Howard sent burning ships into the Spanish Armada. However, despite way too many Hollywood movies falling back on fire at sea, they didn't send in the burning ships right away because burning a bunch of your ships is...burning a bunch of your ships. Not a smart thing to do if it can't actually accomplish anything. What it accomplished here was a great deal: the Spanish Armada suffered NOT because any of its ships burned but because the formation scattered to prevent catching fire. The attack was almost entirely psychological.
Regarding supplies, the Spanish Armada was broken in the channel. It was entirely decimated during its return home due in part to lack of food and fresh water on the ships.
Likewise, fuel made all the difference to the German bombers in the Battle of Britain.
The role that weather has played with the channel may seem obvious: when William was able to cross; winds in favor of the English against the Spanish Armada. Weather has impacted other battles. The mud at Agincourt after heavy rains, for instance, slowed down the French cavalry.
The desire for a dramatic win is a death knell. Harold's decision to immediately move south with exhausted soldiers to face off against William was likely a mistake. Hitler's decision to go after London rather than RAF airfields was thankfully a mistake. Eric Cline tells the story of a Crusader who chased after the enemy because the first time, when he didn't, he got accused of cowardice. The first time was a stalemate. The second, his soldiers got slaughtered.
And so on. Prince Charles retook Scotland with little difficulty. If he had stayed there, what would have been the difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment