Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Mikey Zee, post: 2160830, member: 72818&quot;]I can easily appreciate all viewpoints expressed in this thread....but....</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe Alegandron (and Bing ) has succinctly stated the core issues in my mind---Hannibal and Alexander became unparalleled leaders ---instilling a devotion in their troops that seems almost incomprehensible...as did Caesar; But Hannibal&#039;s army was predominantly comprised of mercenaries and keeping such an army together, let alone successful in battle, is one mark of military genius. All seemed &#039;lucky&#039; and perhaps a bit bold or foolhardy, but all seemed to immediately assess all immediate tactical changes as the need arose and made much of their own luck.</p><p><br /></p><p>In modern times, Patton was regarded as one of the greatest generals in the US Army---bold, perhaps foolhardy and vainglorious (Are any &#039;successful&#039; Generals that are not?) but seized the initiative by constantly advancing and routing the enemy before they could effectively regroup until that old enemy of all armies arose---logistics.</p><p><br /></p><p>Obviously, training, equipment and tactics and strategy are all key components of any military success---luck is always part of it all-----It&#039;s often said, once the battle begins all plans are now virtually useless----Commanders, at this point, now hold the predominant key to success by reacting to the exigencies of battle as they develop.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in