Alternate Outcomes to Famous Battles
May 19, 2020 6:05:50 GMT
Post by tancred on May 19, 2020 6:05:50 GMT
Hi everyone. Was bored the other day, and so looking at Wikipedia's articles on its home page. One article linked to dealt with Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg, US Civil War, July 3, 1863. (I always digress, so all apologies. However, it really is interesting how multiple things happened on July 3--4 of that year that sealed the Confederacy's fate. Battle of Gettysburg won, Siege of Vicksburg ended and won, and what far fewer people know about Battle of Helena won. I used to live in Arkansas, so Battle of Helena was HUGE! All three big Union victories on the same day was the death-knell for the Confederacy).
Anyway, at the bottom of the Charge article, it discusses how two independent researchers towards the end of World War I tried to and did come up with basically the same mathematical formula to try and see if the outcomes of battles could have been different given changes in factors. You can read that article here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
Now, I am no math whiz. It usually makes my head hurt, and I am extremely glad my daily math lessons and classes are far behind me. So, maybe I am just not understanding this model. However, it basically seems to me that this formula says that the deciding factor in battles is that the side with the numerical superiority will always win. We know from endless examples in history that this is not true; numerical inferior forces have very often defeated their superior foes. Can some one with a better brain for math explain this theory to me in simpler terms, or is it, as I conclude, pretty much hogwash?
This theory/formula did interest me enough to wonder if there are other formulas and theories out there that attempt to ask a similar question. Sadly, the article did not have any related theories linked to it. Basically, I wonder if there are theories out there that perhaps rely more on strategy than math? Anyone apply them to some of the battles throughout time they are most interested in?
Not really a theory, but more of an example of what I'm looking for: the Siege of Constantinople 1453. The city had been besieged for almost two months, and had successfully defied the attackers to the point that the Ottomans were on the verge of retreat. The commander of the Imperial forces (mostly mercenaries from western Europe), Giovanni Giustiniani, had blocked off all exits from the area of the walls he had chosen for the concentrated defense. Essentially, he and the other defenders could not retreat unless they destroyed the barricades they themselves had put in place. The Ottomans were on the verge of giving up when Giustiniani was mortally wounded. Whether he really desired to be taken from the field or whether his retainers carried him away unwillingly is up to debate, but one of the barricades was destroyed, and Giustiniani was carried away. Without their inspirational leader and without anything to prevent themselves from retreating, the Imperial soldiers panicked, and fled. Realizing their enemies were no longer firing upon them, the Ottoman forces gained heart, pressed the attack, took the city, and sacked it. Some have suggested that if Giustiniani had not been wounded, or had stayed on the walls even a few minutes longer, the Ottomans would have given up.
Another example is the Spanish Armada. I've read several of Geoffrey Parker's books, and he seems to be one of the leading experts on the Spanish Imperial Armies, its Army of Flanders, the Dutch Revolt, and the Thirty Years War. Towards the end of one of his books, he tries to speculate on if the Spanish Armada could have been successful. After all, he says, there had been successful invasions of the English isle in the past, so how and why did those succeed, and the Spanish Armada failed. He bases his line of thought on the factor of where the Armada launched the invasion from, how it differed from past invasions, and which sally points were best. I find this all very interesting, but I also think Parker is extremely biased (against Spain). The title of the book in question is "Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II" after all! So, though he seems extremely knowledgable, I wonder if his bias clouds his judgement here?
Anybody have similar ideas of "What If's" that were close to happening? Or of armchair strategists who had a better idea of how to achieve victory?
I hope to get some interesting responses. I tend to be somewhat of a conversation killer, though.
Anyway, at the bottom of the Charge article, it discusses how two independent researchers towards the end of World War I tried to and did come up with basically the same mathematical formula to try and see if the outcomes of battles could have been different given changes in factors. You can read that article here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
Now, I am no math whiz. It usually makes my head hurt, and I am extremely glad my daily math lessons and classes are far behind me. So, maybe I am just not understanding this model. However, it basically seems to me that this formula says that the deciding factor in battles is that the side with the numerical superiority will always win. We know from endless examples in history that this is not true; numerical inferior forces have very often defeated their superior foes. Can some one with a better brain for math explain this theory to me in simpler terms, or is it, as I conclude, pretty much hogwash?
This theory/formula did interest me enough to wonder if there are other formulas and theories out there that attempt to ask a similar question. Sadly, the article did not have any related theories linked to it. Basically, I wonder if there are theories out there that perhaps rely more on strategy than math? Anyone apply them to some of the battles throughout time they are most interested in?
Not really a theory, but more of an example of what I'm looking for: the Siege of Constantinople 1453. The city had been besieged for almost two months, and had successfully defied the attackers to the point that the Ottomans were on the verge of retreat. The commander of the Imperial forces (mostly mercenaries from western Europe), Giovanni Giustiniani, had blocked off all exits from the area of the walls he had chosen for the concentrated defense. Essentially, he and the other defenders could not retreat unless they destroyed the barricades they themselves had put in place. The Ottomans were on the verge of giving up when Giustiniani was mortally wounded. Whether he really desired to be taken from the field or whether his retainers carried him away unwillingly is up to debate, but one of the barricades was destroyed, and Giustiniani was carried away. Without their inspirational leader and without anything to prevent themselves from retreating, the Imperial soldiers panicked, and fled. Realizing their enemies were no longer firing upon them, the Ottoman forces gained heart, pressed the attack, took the city, and sacked it. Some have suggested that if Giustiniani had not been wounded, or had stayed on the walls even a few minutes longer, the Ottomans would have given up.
Another example is the Spanish Armada. I've read several of Geoffrey Parker's books, and he seems to be one of the leading experts on the Spanish Imperial Armies, its Army of Flanders, the Dutch Revolt, and the Thirty Years War. Towards the end of one of his books, he tries to speculate on if the Spanish Armada could have been successful. After all, he says, there had been successful invasions of the English isle in the past, so how and why did those succeed, and the Spanish Armada failed. He bases his line of thought on the factor of where the Armada launched the invasion from, how it differed from past invasions, and which sally points were best. I find this all very interesting, but I also think Parker is extremely biased (against Spain). The title of the book in question is "Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II" after all! So, though he seems extremely knowledgable, I wonder if his bias clouds his judgement here?
Anybody have similar ideas of "What If's" that were close to happening? Or of armchair strategists who had a better idea of how to achieve victory?
I hope to get some interesting responses. I tend to be somewhat of a conversation killer, though.