>>36684981
I'd say your friend is right. A general plans according to the forces at their disposal, not vice versa. He employed the tactics that he did because he determined that they were how the weapons of the day were best used, not because he decided on a particular method ahead of time that just so happened to work well with the armies of the day.
If (and it's a big if) Caesar managed to comprehend and properly understand the nature and uses of modern warfare and equipment, he should be perfectly capable of incorporating that knowledge into his tactics.

>>36684981
Caesar was a great general for his time. But that was because he trained to use the tactics and strategies available to him.

I'm not saying he'd be shit-tier or anything, but there'd be a long period of adjustment he might never get over entirely. It's like teaching a fencer to box. Sure, there are some skills that can port over easily, but not many, and it would take time regardless. And Caesar was getting up in years when he died, so there's not much time left.

>>36684981
I say it's both nature and nurture. If Julius Caesar was born on this day and age, he would've needed all of the necessary requirements that he had in order to be a leader of some sort. By that I mean he needs the education, the upbringing, the social status of his family, the food, the nourishment and all of this.

Yes, Julius Caesar was a smart man, but he was not some radical thinker of some sort. He was the product of his upbringing. Maybe if a different man had been raised under the same environmental situations JC was born and raised in, he might have not being a Caesar, but I doubt he would've not have made a name for himself in his era.

There are some generals who were so relentlessly visionary or inventive that I think your friend's line of argument would be right.

With regards to your argument, I'm in favour of it but not totally. Caesar would adapt, but there's too much of a gap for him to adapt completely.

>>36684981
>My friend claims he has some sort of intrinsic leadership ability or skill that is not exclusive to any time period.
This is the real clincher. Being a good leader has nothing to do with when you were born, because how people generally react to authority has not changed since Caesar's day.
There's a reason why Sun Tzu is still considered an authority on leadership and tactics. Even with non-military subjects, a little creativity can help you apply the more martial teachings. "Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot" can, in business, mean "Never agree to a deal that you can't get in writing and in triplicate."

>>36684981
Depends on his age.
I'm sure young Cesar would have an appreciation for modern warfare, and could adapt.

Old Ceaser isn't... You can't teach an old dog, new tricks.

>>36685442
Tell that to people working in tech. Up until very recently, I've been working with a guy who got in with Bell Labs in the 80s, and now he works in cloud computing. You don't survive very long in a field built on innovation and experimentation by having a rigid, conservative mindset.

>>36684981
By the time he'll be brought up to speed on modern tactics and warfare and everything, you might as well had grabbed a random hobo and made him a great general too.

>>36685441
Except 99% of the men he'd command nowadays would never see him or hear him directly.

>>36685503
>Except 99% of the men he'd command nowadays would never see him or hear him directly.
Do you think Caesar had direct contact with all of his men back then? Infantry had most of their contact with lieutenants and such.

>>36685503
>Except 99% of the men he'd command nowadays would never see him or hear him directly.
That was also the case when he was alive. Legionaries saw the general maybe twice in a campaign when he gave a speech, from a podium far off. Soldiers today see the general maybe twice in a campaign when he gives a speech, from a podium on a TV screen.

File: Alexander.jpg (80 KB, 446x576)

80 KB JPG

>>36684981
There are certain traits of strategy and leadership that are universal, and nearly always work. So, if you took all of history's greatest generals and brought them to the modern day and could educate them on modern tactics, at least some of them would still be "history's greatest generals".

Being charismatic and versatile, and having a strategic mindset never goes out of style or stops working. But I think it depends very much on what made the general so good to begin with. With Caesar it really may have been his ability to lead and inspire Romans, not lead and inspire everyone.

I think Alexander would be a better fit for a "General for All Ages".

>>36685555

Yes, but it was very much an age where soldiers had a much stronger bond with/loyalty to their leaders. You don't really see soldiers outside of third world shitholes pledging absolute allegiance - and meaning it - to their generals.

>>36685623
You can pledge allegiance to somebody you've never met personally. If you know their ideals and their skills and what they're all about, you don't have to meet them in person to say "I'll fight and die for you."

>>36685608
The thing about it is to separate tactics from strategy. Caesar would definitely bone up on tactics and modern capabilities, but he'd probably trust his direct subordinates to handle things on a slightly smaller scale. He'd be primarily concerned with flanking and ambushing the enemy and cutting off supplies - winning the war, not just the battle.

>>36685503
>By the time he'll be brought up to speed on modern tactics and warfare and everything, you might as well had grabbed a random hobo and made him a great general too.
That was my argument too. If you had a machine or technique that could teach him modern tactics and warefare it would work on anyone just as effectively and Ceasr's success would have more to do with his technique than some intristic skill

>>36686028
Not true. Your friend and you are both right. Being a great general requires certain other skills, like charisma and tact, and ability to improvise and an methodical mindset.

Caesar would bring more to the table than some hobo simply because alot of his prexisting skills would be applicable.

>>36684981

You were objectively wrong. He might take a minute to learn the new ways, especially if you brought him into our world AFTER all his conquests, but adaptability is one trait of great generals, and all those with that title demonstrated it. I'm sure he might have to acclimate himself to new war sciences and tactics and shit, but strategies are not completely different from how they had been.

>>36685474

That is incredibly true. During the French conquests in Asia in the 50s they really struggled because war changed and the general commanders were still trying to follow the old ways.

File: 220px-Subudei.jpg (23 KB, 220x330)

23 KB JPG

>>36685608
This kinda makes me think, who would win and be the 'greatest general of all ages' if brought up to speed with current tactics at the peak of their life. Alexander or Subutai?

>>36684981
>some intrinsic qualities or skills that could still be transferred to modern warfare that would give him an advantage over other strategists today.
He did: being a manipulative cunt and impassionate orator.

All these armchair generals. Not only have the tactics and strategies of war change, technology and the entire way it's fought has. There are no massive engagements anymore, not when you can simply send bombers to send your enemies into the stone age.

Caesar fought barbaric tribes using blocks of infantry and was concerned with his supply train and weather conditions. With the way war has changed, you may as well resurrect him on an alien planet and ask him to use his Glzxfpt sky riders to take on the Watnu before they can space his lastuap. It would be totally alien to him.

>>36685356
>It's like teaching a fencer to box
Early bare knuckle boxing took a lot of it's principles from fencing, moron.
Know that famous out stretched arm, body bent back old timey guard? Typical fencing stance, employing the same principles.

I do HEMA and box, so I should know too.

>>36686224
>but strategies are not completely different from how they had been.

But they kind of are. Modern warfare is brutally mathematical and flashes of genius and stratagems are secondary to staffwork, planning, and logistics.

The ability of "great captains" to turn the tide of battle in a single day (and thereby decide the war with a single decisive tactical victory) really ended even before the Napoleonic Wars were over.

A lot of the great commanders from history would make superb field grade officers, since hands on command was their specialty. We don't have enough information on most of them to determine whether they'd make great army commanders though. With Caesar's political and organizational skill, I'd guess he'd make a good one.

>>36686320
>There are no massive engagements anymore
But there are still engagements. They're jus smaller and more spread out. It wouldn't be out of the question to think that Caesar could adapt for a bunch of skirmishes instead of one huge battle.
>not when you can simply send bombers to send your enemies into the stone age.
Aerial combat is just another dimension of maneuvering. One more place to flank from.
>was concerned with his supply train and weather conditions.
These are still concerns. Supplies and environment will never not be concerns.

>>36686224
>Discussing an argument about bringing Julius Caesar into the modern world.
>Trying to declare something to be "objectively wrong"

So basically, the question is, who is right:

Metal Gear Solid,
>War has changed.
or Fallout
>War never changes.

Correct?

>>36686394
>>These are still concerns. Supplies and environment will never not be concerns.
True, but there a lot more these days that he would need to deal with. It's not the ancient world anymore.

>>36686436
They're both right. The nature of war had changed, that it was status quo and wouldn't stop. War hadn't changed because humans are still dicks to each other.

>>36684981

I'd say the whole issue is in "bringing him up to speed" that your friend is just assuming is possible. I think the whole question is *if* he can plausibly be brought to the same level of competence.

Idk the answer to that but I think it's sorta silly that he starts the argument with "well Caesar + all of the knowledge of being a great general = a great general."

>>36686332
there is a reason people don't box like that any more

File: 1415886032640.jpg (165 KB, 1291x533)

165 KB JPG

>>36686390
>logistics

Someone never read Dude Where's My Corn?

>>36686483
So the existence of war, or perhaps you might say the nature of war, hasn't changed, but the manner in which war is conducted has changed.

>>36686271
I'd say Subutai as he revolutionized warfar for his people and those he faught aganst. No other general led so many victories aganst so many people with such different climats, geography tactics, and stragagies. Alexander never losing could may have well been a myth as when he did go up aganst Indians he made reparations even though he 'beat' them on the battlefield, so there's that too

>>36686513
This. The conclusion is stated in its premise in a way that nullifies a valid counterargument of "could an adult who has learned the old way all his life plausibly conform to an utterly alien style enough to master it?"

>>36686526
Yes, because of gloves permitting head punching.
The idea of jabbing and binding, defence at distance and close up are all still traceable to fencing.
Don't talk about shit you don't know about. Do you even box?

>>36684981
he might have to learn about some of the new technological advancements, but after that he'd still be pretty handy.
He'd also wonder why we haven't just conquered the many impoverished third-world countries under the rule of europa (or america depending) rather than let them squalor in the mud with AKs

>>36686563
We're assuming he's going up against people who also have similar knowledge as he does. Knowing tactics and strategies are different from implementing them and the argument is about implementation

>>36686528
>Someone never read Dude Where's My Corn?

Feeding and clothing 50,000 men by gathering up all the food in a 50 mile radius is not the same as making sure 500,000 men and all their vehicles spread out across a thousand miles are supplied. Stuff moves by road and rail, and there are only so many roads. Are you trying to squeeze that division down that route? Where are you going to reroute the supply trucks that you had originally set on that same route, now that you've created a 30 mile long traffic jam by trying to feed in a mechanized division down a 2 lane road?

Gamers really underestimate all this stuff because games hardly ever mention it. Sure the commanding general has his staff to handle this mess, but he's not going to get very far if he doesn't know why his brilliant strategy is falling apart because he knows jack shit about how to move modern forces.

And of course in my post I said that some historical commanders would be able to adapt - others are best left at lower levels of command where they can get stuck in and only worry about what's happening in their immediate area without having to worry about the big picture.

>>36685608

You know, of all the generals in history I'd go for Hannibal Barca for the modern day. He had the extraordinary skill of many of history's greatest, and Cannae is still one of the most complete victories ever, but it is his unique traits that are especially modern.

He is an extremely capable administrator, moreso than pretty much anyone else. When the Carthaginians lost the Punic Wars, Rome imposed a deliberately-crushing tribute, planning to cripple their ability to restore their army and fail payments, justifying the follow-up war. Clever, since Rome could far more easily weather losses. Except Hannibal managed to reform their economy and snuff corruption so hard that they actually just paid the tribute in instalments out of their budgetary surplus. He also had extraordinary skill in managing his army and his formations to match the force he had, not the forces he wanted. Exceptional administrative skill and the ability to adapt your force to meet needs are hallmarks of the best modern generals.

He also had incredible loyalty from his men. By the end of his campaign he only had a handful of his veterans left amidst a shitload of mercenaries and foreigners from various empires, and there was no meaningful dissent in his ranks because they trusted him completely.

You have a great reformer, and one able to win the loyalty of his men to trust in the reforms. Someone able to build the next war and fight it while his enemies fight the last war.

He also has a great knowledge of mobility, of knowing what is worth fighting and when it's worth giving up something you fought for. Mobility is the defining trait of modern warfare.

He would be an extremely capable leader of any modern military force, but specifically, a fucking amazing one to build an army from nothing. If Hannibal Barca showed up today in the Middle East or Northern Africa he could realistically build an empire from nothing in his own lifetime - even if the Western powers actively fought him.

If someone cloned caeser he'd probably just be a research subject and/or tourist attraction.

>>36686945

Whereas in comparison someone like Subotai or Scipio, both fucktastically skilled generals who were strategic and tactically brilliant, but with no particular administrative bent, would be most well-suited to a major military where they can have the staff office support they need to handle logistics, recruitment, and morale. Part of their genius was knowing what they needed help with and letting others do that, so they can focus on being likely the best tacticians ever to live.

Fantasy scenario time - The CIA, wary of increasing terrorist activity in Northern Africa threatening American interests, brings Hannibal Barca back to life and sends him over with a small staff, a few million dollars, and carte blanche. But as he builds up a rebellion, then an empire, they get wary - he has no loyalty to them, and it's obvious. All their plans to oust and kill him are fruitless since he learned their ways. So they bring back another - the only one who could truly defeat him.

Scipio Africanus at the head of a US Expeditionary Force, with the finest logistics and staff support in the world.

Hannibal Barca, with a force of mercenaries and rebels with absolute loyalty, in an empire he built planning to be invaded.

Whoever wins, it's going to make a great fucking story.

>>36687118
This needs to happen, and I don't care what format it ends up in

File: puns.jpg (132 KB, 470x420)

132 KB JPG

>>36685310
>not because he decided on a particular method ahead of time that just so happened to work well with the armies of the day.

You could say the IJN's doctrine went the way of...

..Iron BOTTOM Sound!

File: boney.jpg (203 KB, 990x1400)

203 KB JPG

>>36684981
This is basically just a rehashing of the old argument between Carlyle and Spencer over the Great Man theory.

Your friend takes what is essentially Carlyle's position: Caesar, as a great man who had a major impact on history, would succeed in any period if given the chance.

Your position is closer to Spencer's: Caesar was a man of his time, who was shaped by it as much as he shaped it. He would not necessarily do well in the modern day, or any period markedly unlike his own.

File: napoFIXED.jpg (627 KB, 900x997)

627 KB JPG

>>36687882
Fixed that for you.

>>36687118
Please, someone write this.

>>36688116
>filename not STANDING HERE
one job

>>36688153
But that is Armstrong's stuff, not Jack's.

>>36684981
Your friend is most likely correct here, nothing to do with being a Romeaboo. Shit that's taught in grade school now and seems blindingly obvious even to idiots because of the mass intelligentsia was totally unknown three thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean there weren't great minds three thousand years ago figuring some of those things out even then. Had they been educated in these things there's no doubt they would have understood, tested, applied logic to and eventually extrapolated from these bits of knowledge we take for granted now. I doubt strategy is very different.

>>36684981
No.
Generals don't matter any more really.

The balance has tipped well and truly in the favor of logistics, technology and the strength and sustainability of your economy.

>>36689516
Is that why the iraqi army at mosul decided not to fight?

Its the man not the machine.

>>36687118
This is great.

>>36684981
I'd lean more towards your friend's opinion - the skills to lead, think and inspire haven't really changed, though tactics and attitudes might set him back a good way. You'd probably have to explain human rights and the laws of war under almost entirely political terms, for example.

>>36685474
Militaries, in general, tend to be slow to adapt - "prepared to fight the previous war" has been a common criticism rightly levelled at many armies since the Boer War, at the very least.

File: ohgodwhy.gif (21 KB, 455x364)

21 KB GIF

>>36687118

>>36686320
He also fought Romans and decided he didn't give a shit about his supplies. He was not a bad general by any means.

>>36689516
>The balance has tipped well and truly in the favor of logistics, technology and the strength and sustainability of your economy.
But that's how it always was. Iron weapons are better than bronze and all that.

When you consider that modern officers are non-fighting coward politicians all trying to assfuck each other and get promoted, he can't do that bad.

Unlike virtually all modern high ranking officers, Caesar was a soldier and a politician.

>>36691426
With the advent of modern media, most armies don't want "real soldiers" as their generals. Not since Patton slapped a bitch and didn't give any fucks to the news that jumped all over him for it.

>>36691426
>non fighting

Are you seriously suggesting that generals should be fighting on the front lines? And you are extremely ignorant if you think the point of an officer is to be the one directly pulling the trigger, a junior officer is there to make sure the unit does its mission. Wanting to cripple a modern army for no reason other than 'muh bravery' is retarded.

If you are in the army you are a soldier, that is the definition of 'soldier'. And in Rome you had to be a soldier before you could be a politician in most cases so what is your point.

>>36684981
I kind of think he'd realize generals don't have the power they used to and start applying his talents to the Industrial side of the Military-Industrial complex.
>Merchandising! Where the real money from the war is made!

>>36695419
Well his whole deal was his massive ambition. Which today is better served by going into politics or industry as you said.

No Cicero's or Pompey's around to get in his way either.

>>36686332
>>36686574
I don't understand why you're so embarrassingly mad. The guy clearly meant teaching a modern boxer to fence and whether there would be any problems at all in adapting the fundamentals of one style to another. You invented him making the claim that boxing and fencing have absolutely no historical roots in common and then got mad at the idea.

File: 1409953087608.png (261 KB, 400x520)

261 KB PNG

The issue isn't really whether or not Ceaser had the adaptability to become a great general in the modern era, (though chances are he would) its would he have the same connections and background he had back then.

Think about it. He was born into nobility, was exceedingly wealthy, knew all the right people and was groomed for the position of leadership since the day of his birth.

Its like when people say they want to bring george washington or ben franklin back from the past. Who is washington today? Just some nut with a wig who thinks he's the "real" george washington.

>>36695532
When you ask the wrong question, you receive the wrong answer.

>>36695541
Caesar war born into a relatively poor family, actually. His biggest benefit was his relation to Marius, aka the guy behind the Marian reforms. After Sulla killed Marius Caesar got his ass more or less exiled for being a supporter and had to build himself up from nothing. He spent most of his life deeply in debt and barely outrunning his debtors.

He was definitely of the upper classes, and had a noble and storied family history, but hardly hugely wealthy.

>>36686574
>>36686332
>Implying any sort of boxing or fencing done today can be considered anything other than a sport.

>>36684981
Patton believed he was a reincarnated subordinate of Julius Caesar who served with him in his Gaul campaign. He credits that with why he was good. In all likelihood Caesar would be bringing you up to speed on how to logistics.

>>36695914
Yeah, but what you leaving out is that he was part of whatever cloak and dagger society that was running the show at the time.

Its like being a mason, you're either born into it or you're not.

>>36684981
caesars biggest thing was his charisma

he wouldn not be nearly as charismatic as a person misplaced in time


you caqn't be a great leader if people don't follow you

>>36695993
Oh definitely Caesar was an aristocrat to the bones, despite his respect for the common people. Fuck, he was practically the epitome of the Roman Aristocrat.

But in terms of wealth, he was long on history and dignity and short on cash. He got into stuff because of his background, but he took over those same opportunities because of himself.

>>36696024
interestingly enough, if Marius had won over Sulla, Caesar would have never been important enough for history to remember him since he'd become a religious leader and would have likely never made any military conquests

>>36689516
Its like you think the Romans won their wars through people shouting from horseback.

Roman logistics and the stealing of enemy tactics and technology is why they got so huge.

>>36695245
I'm suggesting that no one who doesn't have an idea what combat is actually like should ever be commanding men in combat.

Unless you want an army of soldiers commanded by a second army of dress-up rats they despise.

>>36684981
Being a great leader has fuck all to do with who you are and everything to do with where and what you are.

Tactics, strategy and leadership are all taught. Sure, you have to look good, and charisma helps, but winning battles is about how much faith your soldiers have in you and that comes from your lineage and your education. Without those, Caesar would have been nothing.

Compare Roman army tactics in actual large scale battles to what we do today. We have no gigantic battle scenes anymore. If you allow going back to WWII style fighting then maybe yeah, he would be effective. But small skirmishes and drone strikes is not what Caesar was all about.

>>36688116
>Looks like it's time for Napoleon...to RIP BONES APART!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQgMntenO8

>>36696212
Tactics don't matter for half of what you think they might nowadays

People who know nothing think warfare is about tactics. People who know less than nothing about warfare think it's technology.

Winners, know that it's about resources. All war ever is is one big-ass logistics game. Can you churn out more guns than your enemies? Build more tanks? Churn out bombs and planes faster? Congratulations, you just won the war. That's why asymmetrical warfare inevitably goes straight towards a war of attrition-drain the resources without losing your own and you win. WWII was won by circling around Germany and strangling it to death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industry cities that churned out steel and iron. Civil War was won when Sherman burned half the south while the North set up a massive fucking naval blockade. Napolean failed because Russia froze shut during the winter and everyone died. Rommel ultimately failed in northern Libya because, despite the fact that the man was a tactical genius, he moved too fast for his supply trains and got trapped right up against Tobruk.

Being a great military leader isn't about tactics, it's about resources and resource management. Nothing more.

>>36696481
Tactics are still pretty important, you dudes have to have them or they'll get wrecked no matter how awesome your logistics are.

Saying it's all about one thing in war is silly.

>>36696198
Are you actually suggesting officers should have to be enlisted first? Or that only officers who joined a direct combat unit should ever be allowed to rise in rank?

Because that is a terrible idea for several reasons. Hell, your plan would make it literally impossible for a country to promote officers unless there is constant warfare going on.

>>36696481
>technology is irrelevant

Are you kidding? An F-22 will get one HUNDRED to one k/d against lots of older jets, you think this has no bearing on how successful the side who has them will be in gaining air superiority? Do you think controlling the sky over the area of battle is irrelevant as well?

Look at the Falklands, the UK garrison is horrifically outnumbered by any potential invasion force and is thousands of miles away from supplies and reinforcements but they would still easily defeat an Argentine invasion force that had full logistical support because their edge in training and technology is so great.

>>36697465
Compared to the ability to churn out more jets, fuel them for longer, and give them better weapons? You're goddamn right they are. Nifty jets are fucking useless unless you have enough of them and can actually stock them with shit. You're goddamn technology is only useful as your capability to deploy it. Logistics are the be-all end-all in determining the scope of your campaign and the limits you have to your front-line.

Jerk off to your fancy jets all fucking day, wars are started with, fought with, and ended only with the scope of logistics deployment and management.

>>36697583
Stop building up a false dichotomy. Technology is important. Logistics and management are also important. I'd say they're important in different ways. Logistics are relevant in imposing constraints on combatants, while technology defines instead their abilities. One is grasp, the other reach. Logistics is generally additive, while technology can be multiplicative.

To borrow part of the example the other guy gave, it is relevant that a single British Type 45 destroyer could target and destroy 48 aircraft in a single salvo is relevant. It is also relevant whether Argentina would have sufficient capacity to construct aircraft, source aircrew and direct air formations to overwhelm that technological advantage in an attack.

>>36697583
>better weapons

You said technology was irrelevant, better weapons ARE technology.

If technology was as irrelevant as you claim then arms races would not exist and armies with better weapons and vehicles would not have the huge advantages they do. We would all still be running around using bolt action rifles and riding horses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman

Go ask the ten thousand Sudanese soldiers killed by artillery, machine guns and modern rifles for 47 British losses if they think technology is irrelevant.

>>36696481
Sure, war is all about resources. That's why no one is able to hold Afghanistan, because the Taliban can churn out so many tanks we can't handle it.

Tactics are important, because no matter how much shit you have. Yes, its possible to win a war just by having more money than the enemy, but without soldiers taking cities a war of conquest is pretty much impossible.

>>36697583
Right, because 10,000 roman legionaries could stand up to a tank battalion just because your logistics gives them good food and sharp swords?

>>36696132
Those Masters of Rome books cover that pretty well for fiction I think.

Weygard and Gamelin were great Commanders in Ww1 having invented the idea of commandos and mobile operational warfare seperatly but becoming real shit in WW3.
What I am trying to say is that like said >>36685392 having good ability is not intrustic (?) But needs some learning.
Also warfare have changed quite a bit.
A third point would be the difference of tactical levels.
They are great difference between tactics, strategy and operation.
Patton might been good ttacticwise but only average in operations (sicily) and not active on a strategic level.

>>36698031
>intrustic
I think you mean intrinsic.

>>36697953

If we take this autism far enough, one could say that if the tank batallion had very shitty logistics, they would run out of fuel and ammo soon enough.

>>36697883
You are generalizing logistics.
Also added to logistics is the ability to hold an area and supply your men.
Afgahnistan as a war has ended but continued with a Guerrila and resistance war which just fucks with common notion and rules of engagment.

>>36687753
>>36688151
>>36690364
>>36690850

"You have the outskirts of Asmara, Hannibal, but I have twice your men. Your rebels are dug in, but my Americans have been fighting city wars against militias for twenty years now. You can't crush us, and you can't afford the time to besiege us. We will withdraw, and you will not succeed. We're two kilometres from the city edge."

"And within range of my artillery. So nice of the Ethiopians to leave these Abrams lying around. You've exposed your men, and their stalling to regroup has only allowed me time to outmaneuver you. I told you I'd repeat my greatest victory."

"You 'd think to repeat Cannae? Against me? Oh, Hannibal, it's the Information Age. You can't surprise me with tanks. I've seen them for the last hour through Drone imagery. I have as many men watching you as you have men total. Clever, though, only using fifty of your tanks. It's a contestable force. You know me, and you know I can't leave an error like that unpunished. But I know there were a hundred tanks in that garrison, and you won't lure my men into a pincer."

"Ah. I overestimated you, Scipio."

"Oh?"

"The other tanks aren't in reserve. They're six hours from Massawa, the port... and all five of the Saudi supertankers."

"Fifty tanks won't get far under Spectre fire."

"A powerful threat - except you won't have them airborne for another nine. Three hours is enough to sink at least two of them. Even one would cause a political crisis for your nation - and force you to withdraw, tanks or no."

"Clever."

"You think I'd learn nothing from my state leaving me out to dry twice?"

File: 1414215843155.jpg (41 KB, 800x547)

41 KB JPG

>>36698112

"I thought you'd learn no to confirm your own weakness. Fifty tanks? My concentrated force can push through that in an hour, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. You've already lost one infantry unit in the city, and the others are falling back. You can't 'encircle' anyone any more - especially when their firepower outmatches yours five men to one. Half my men to assist Massawa, the rest enough to lock your largest army in place for the rest of the war. And I'll double my forces next week, when the transport ships start to arrive."

"..."

"Nothing to say, old friend? You would have been better served listening before. War has changed. The press, the shield-wall, the melee - they're gone. There is no more encirclement, no uneven press. There is firepower, and logistics. War goes to whoever has the biggest, sharpest meatgrinder, and the most men to work it. There is no more Cannae. You'll replicate nothing here."

"You're right. Cannae's tactics are redundant. You've concentrated two thousand men into a single fighting force, and I don't have the men or the firepower to stop them. But I never intended to replicate Cannae's tactics - just its outcome. My men are retreating. Your entire force is inside a one-kilometre area of the government centre, which I had free reign of for almost a year.

My old tactics are redundant. But the philosophy behind them is timeless. Hamilcar Squad - activate the device. One-point-two megatonne yield."

>>36687118
FUCKING 5 STAR POST
this is why I love /tg/

>>36698120
Are we gonna create a Roleplay based on resurrected leaders of the past?

I want to see Alexander or Salahadin resurrected then see them create empires from scratch

>>36698341
Would Saladin even like the current state of the Muslim world at all? Would he be able to bring a change for the better?

kinda strange affirmation since it's with him that Rome's decadence started

>>36698438
Salahadin force versus ISIS
or will he join them?

File: shaka like a polaroid picture.jpg (137 KB, 740x1000)

137 KB JPG

This is a fucking awesome thread.

Shaka Zulu, modern Africa, thoughts?

Dont forget this is the man that revolutionized one of the biggest African empires to provide a serious obstacle to the fucking British Imperial Army. With spears.

>>36698530
Shaka fucking Zulu
Man, i read him in 3rd grade. So much nostalgia.
How bout montenzuma

>>36698491
>will he join them?
>One of the most respected military leaders of his time
>was courteous and merciful to his enemies
>his correspondence with Richard the Lionheart is famous throughout the world

>>36698530
Depends.
His success had it's roots in his personal charisma, the fact that he was well respected by his people for his capabilities before the British, and a measure of the times.
Zulu in these times? Eh, he'd have a hard sell, especially since he'd have to coral age old enemy tribes to work with each other, or parcel out land so they can stay separate, something that the US/Europe/Russia/China would not stand for.
However, he could be the start to whatever part of Africa he is in getting organized.

>>36698070
>Afgahnistan as a war has ended but continued with a Guerrila and resistance war which just fucks with common notion and rules of engagment.
I think this counts as moving the goalposts.

Afghanistan is a war, pure and simple. The tactics by which the Taliban fight (that would be the gorilla warfare) are what's winning it for them.

>>36698530
Not a chance. He improved his military's tactics, yes, but very little else about the Zulu nation put it ahead of its rivals. He was mostly exceptional for being more of a psychopath than anyone else. When his beloved (in every way, apparently) mother died, he ordered one member of every family in his empire be impaled so that every one of the subjects could feel the pain he felt. His overwhelming brutality in conquest and blitzkrieg tactics worked well enough for him against other contemporary African kingdoms (which were all he ever fought - his half-brothers assassinated him before the Zulus ever clashed with Voortrekkers or the British) but would not have secured him victory.

He'd be simply too bloodthirsty and too set in his ways to make even a competent modern general. We're talking about a man who thought literacy was pointless because messengers always delivered accurate messages when threatened with death. A dude whose life was saved by a Brit with medical knowledge but failed to see how that medicine could help his armies or people. A guy who was shown firearms by foreigners and concluded that they were of no use since Zulus would always be numerous enough to overwhelm them. He'd make a good warlord in some complete breakdown a la Liberia or Somalia, but any modern army would chew him up and spit him out.

>>36698530
>one of the biggest African empires
It's unfortunate that this empire didn't even encompass the whole of South Africa. It's not really much of a feat.

>>36698707
Remind me of Vlad the impaler

>>36698694
>winning it

They were not 'winning it' by any stretch of the imagination. That is the entire reason they focus on roadside bombs, ambushes and murdering civilians. If they tried anything else they would be crushed instantly.

Nobody can really 'win' because they are not able to expel or defeat their enemy and we are not allowed to do what is necessary to destroy them properly.

>>36698728
I would argue they are winning it. Ambushes and roadside bombs are valid tactics, and they're working. Nations are pulling out of Afghanistan left right and centre, and yet the Taliban are still there.

As NATO are the invading force in this case, I count that as winning.

Disclaimer: I am by no means in support of the Taliban, claiming NATO as the bad guy or saying they're inept.

>>36698719
There is a small dufference.
Vlad did not hurt his own subjects being generally good towards the common men.
He impaled and tortured foreigners and traitrous nobles.
>>36698778
So the Talibans are winning the occupation not the war

>>36698118
This is everything I've ever wanted to think about.

>>36698841
>So the Talibans are winning the occupation not the war
Its a war of occupation. Stop moving the goalposts. That's like saying Caesar didn't win the Gallic Wars, just the occupation. The Allies didn't win WW2, they just stopped the occupation.

>>36686528

>implying there was corn in Europe before 1492

>>36698841
Moving the goalposts to support your bullshit armchair general hypothesis.

We get it, you read a Slate article about the future of war or some shit.

If Caesar lived today he could be a successful politician or owner of a successful company. He was smart, driven and charismatic, the traits that bring success. In other words, he wasn't just an average chump "in the right place and the right time".

But he is no superhuman being. He wouldn't bring the dawning of a new age or anything. That's just overly romanticized romeaboo speech.

>>36698118
And then the US military uses full nuclear doctrine and annihilates Hannibal's half-assed empire.

>>36684981
Heres my 2 cents: at the time of his Gaul campaign he did not have anything in the way of field command or even that much combat experience before hand. He learned via writings and teachers. Being good at warfare with only that to go on before the days of military academies was a rare and special thing. It shows Julius Caesar is good at learning the subject. I think if you took a young Caesar into the modern world then gave him two years of training before being given a command he would do very.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/36684981/

>>36698719
You mean the guy who purged internal traitors, cockles invading Mohammedians, and dealt with constant treachery from supposed fellow Christians? The guy still considered a Romanian national hero to this day?

>>36698491
>Salahadin force versus ISIS
>or will he join them?
Kurdish Sunni and he seemed to be against the sort of extremism that ISIS supports.
He'd probably put them down then unify the other rebel groups in Syria and Iraq. No idea for long term plans.

>>36698707
So your usual African warlord?

>>36698983
I'm assuning dude meant wheat, since a lot of nonenglish speaking euroes Call that something like corn.

For instance in Denmark we Call it korn.

>>36700600
>You mean the guy who purged internal traitors, cockles invading Mohammedians, and dealt with constant treachery from supposed fellow Christians?
Yep.
> The guy still considered a Romanian national hero to this day?
Anything wrong with that, you fucking Turk?

>>36698778
Nations are pulling out of Afghanistan because none of them intented to stick around to begin with. Taliban used to rule most of the country and had all kinds of feudal bullshit rules. Now they don't, they're confined to Pakistani tribal areas leading a rebellion against an installed government and their largely incompetent Security forces.

>>36701218
I think your reading comprihension needs some work. The dudes post in overwhelmingly positive towards Vlad and in response to a post liking him to an insane African warlord.

>>36686549
Nigga, install a spell check on your browser.

>>36701266
Not the same anon but its Poe's law in effect. I can't tell if
>>36700600
Is being positive about Vlad or mocking the popular culture view of Vlad as a heo.

>>36702280
Apart from Romanians, seems most people just see Vlad as the dude who impaled people because he was Dracula.

>>36702304
Pretty much yeah. As far as I know most people dont know much about him except he was the inspiration for Dracula (the vampire). Pretty much like how Frankenstein is known as a lumbering brute when in the book he was well versed and spent a lot of time moping about his life.

>>36702389
>Frankenstein is known as a lumbering brute when in the book he was well versed and spent a lot of time moping about his life.
How about "people think Frankenstein is the monster and not the creator"?

>>36698491
he'd whip up the kurds like nothing you've ever seen; he'd do isis in in less than a month

>>36702466
I think the problem is that people get confused because Frankenstein (the scientist) is a monster (morally), where as Frankenstein's "Monster" isn't.

>>36702942
>I think the problem is that people get confused because Frankenstein (the scientist) is a monster (morally), where as Frankenstein's "Monster" isn't.
No, that really isn't why. It's because they know the story is about a monster, and most monster stories have the monster in the title (The Mummy, The Wolf-Man, Dracula, etc).

>>36702942
The reason people get confused is because word is shorter than two, they've never actually read the book, and no one ever talks about Frankenstein except when analyzing the books or when pendantically correcting people over a common shorthand and thus have no need to refer to him.

>>36697465

Not the same guy and to be fair though, technology didn't really matter in regards to air superiority in the case of the Vietnam war to the North Vietnamese airforce flying their old MiG 17's who could barely do Mach 1 against the technologically superior USAF F-105's capable of doing Mach 2 speeds and the MiG 17's were still outperforming and shooting down F-105's or thwarting their mission objectives. Sixteen Vietnamese Air Force aces compared to the USAF three aces, two more if you want to account for Naval aces as well bringing the entire count to five total for US aces. It's pretty much the reason why the whole Top Gun program started, because the Vietnamese airforce kicked the shit out of us in the skies despite our superior technology at the time.

>>36702942
But at the end of the day the monster turns out to be more human than the doctor, and the doctor turns out to be more of a monster than his creation. Kind of poetic when you think about it, huh?

>>36703117
Yeah, I remember freshman English class too

>>36703117

So it was the original "No John you are the demons"?

>>36687118
Boner 100% engaged

CARTAGO DELENDA EST CARTAGO DELENDA EST

>>36703204
And then Frankenstain was a zombie.

>>36702280
I don't see how you read my post as mockery.

File: 1410759754886.png (170 KB, 644x682)

170 KB PNG

>>36684981
Napoleon once said that his secret was reading the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar over and over and over.

On top of that, modern military academies still use a the lessons from Napoleon and Sun Tzu despite the arms and armor from their respective time periods being utterly outdated.

These two facts prove that being a succesful military commander, to a certain extent, transcends the arms and armor that your troops use. Of course you need to be aware of them but a lot of it is also troop movement, logistics, knowing how to lure your enemy to the location where you want to have them, personal charisma etc.

Perhaps Caesar pulled to the modern era would be less effective, but still very fucking effective. And all he'd need to do to reach his peak is understand how modern weapons work (though admittedly that'd be a hard task for someone who would probably run away screaming if he heard someone's cell phone ring).

File: 1378670278527.png (1 MB, 3200x2000)

1 MB PNG

If Julious Caesar was brought back today and brought up to speed. Delta Force would break into the compound he's currently situated at and fucking kill him in the first conflict he becomes part of, the end.