Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dedicated to the discussion of matters historical, and current issues of a mostly military and political nature.
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(53)
-
▼
February
(11)
- RM Jonathan Holland
- Prince Harry to Iraq?
- The Peasants are Revolting!!!
- Still No Justice for Military Policemen
- Working Lunch Should Stick to Finance and Consumer...
- The End of the Line
- Captain Calthrop and the Art of War
- Regionalisation and the The Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy
- Military Strength v The Will to Win
- King Weiwang and the Implementation of Tax
- Up and Running
-
▼
February
(11)
2 comments:
Mark; it looks like I have registered. Huzzah!!
Military Strength & Will to Win
May I also suggest that the side which makes the fewest mistakes will win. May I submit the following;
1.F&I War
a. Lt Col Gage as Braddock's advance party commander should have secured the high ground and then advanced after meeting the frogs & feathers.
b. Abercrombie should have waited for his guns befor attacking Montcalm at Ft Carillon.
While these didn't change the outcome of the war, it did put a big dent in the "invincibility" of the British regulars.
2. AWI
a. Bunker Hill. Brig Clinton's idea, go by boat, seal off the neck and capture them all easily.
b. New York. Go up the East and Hudson rivers and put Washigton and his army in a bag.
c. Trenton. Col Rahl reads the note and prepares an ambush. Washington and his men are captured.
It's a good observation Ben. Certainly, it is possible to look back and identify those mistakes that were material in most conflicts.
I'm sure that you would agree that the most powerful side has the greatest ability to survive the results of a mistake, but just occasionally circumstances dictate otherwise.
Certainly Rahl's unprofessional behaviour was one of epic proportion. It is highly debateable whether the rebellion would have survived the destruction of the Continental Army.
Best wishes,
Mark
Post a Comment