The most spectacular example I know of is France in WWI, which sacked 65% of the division commanders in the first 90 days, 34% of the replacment generals were sacked, and 27% of the replacements were sacked. Only 3.5% of the generals holding division or higher level commands in 1914 were holding positions of equal or greater responsibility in 1918. Much of the cause for this record rests on the flawed tactical system that France adopted before the war. Something about machine guns and French Elan. . .
As another example, Russia has a historical pattern of having really bad armies at the begining of a war but getting much better as the war continues. I've seen references to Stalin having had 200+ generals shot for incompetence, cowardice or just being unsuccessful.
Loskalm, KOW, and forts:
If the KOW can be assumed to built invunerable fortresses, why is it assumed that they can roll over anyone elses without having to spend a few months/ years besieging it? Something does not seem to fit here. If you have several thousand years of fortifications and documentation to look at and tinker with, you can probably find some workable designs. Fortresses with a few hundred (or less) troops have held out against many thousands for months.
Supplies:
One problem that armies that rely on missles have is keeping a large supply of them available and safe. According to what seem the most reasonable accounts, the Mongols each had 100+ arrows on their horses, and each their 3 or more remounts had another supply of arrows. They also were accompanied by pack trains and followed by caravans loaded with more supplies and craftsmen.
Of course the Mongols can get in real trouble off the grasslands, as their horses will eat out the area quite quickly.
Foot archers have the problem that they seem to only be able to carry 2 to 4 dozen arrows per man, the rest being carried in the baggage train. So they are are somewhat limited in that they need access to their supplies (or win) in the first few minutes of battle. Otherwise they become pretty poor infantry. Foot archers are somewhat difficult to use if your opponent is clever enough to not directly attack them, due to their limited mobility.
Military Cultures:
There is also a cultural element here that seems to be ignored. The style of war that that the classic horse warrior has is centered on the use of missles, fighting at a distance rather than face to face, withdrawal when faced with significant resistance and to slowly wear away the enemy rather than engaging in a single massive clash. The Greek/Roman/Western way of war is centered about a face to face battle to the death, in which the objective is the destruction of the opponent's army in a single massive clash. A phalanx is a good example of this. A single mass of troops designed to advance upon the opponent and drive them from the field in a single short. bloody clash. Victory is determined by both miltary skill and their moral superiority and courage, as one man fleeing can doom all.
A nomad rading party is an example of the other major style. Attacking only where they have an advantage, and not hesitating to retreat if threatened, they are after loot and fun, not to demonstrate their moral superiority over anyone.
The entire culture supports the military culture, as it is not just a light frosting. The roots of the military culture run deep into the culture that supports it. A culture that believes "With your shield or on it" is not a culture that will easily adopt to "we sneak up on them in the night and kill a couple, start some fires, steal some horses, then run away" as a way to wage war.
Powered by hypermail