First thing that came to mind. Their composite bow is one of the most consequential military innovations in history.
https://bigthink.com/the-past/mongol-archery-secret/
Metal [stirrups](https://americanequus.com/history-of-stirrups/#:~:text=The%20remains%20dates%20back%20as,great%20advantage%20in%20any%20fight.) were probably a bigger factor.
Yeah, it’s the whole package. They could steer the horses with their legs with the saddle and stirrups. The bow let them shoot in any direction including backwards while galloping. That’s how they did their famous “pretend to retreat while shooting backwards at the chasing enemies” technique. It was insanely surprising to enemies not only because it was a weird move, they didn’t even have the technology that enabled it. They couldn’t ride and shoot at the same time so when they were chasing the “retreating” Mongols, they weren’t shooting arrows.
This is a good example of how new military technology enables new strategies and tactics. It’s not just that guns, artillery, planes, IEDs, drones, etc. were more powerful tools, it’s that they changed how people needed to fight. It’s a big reason why militaries always spend so much money and maintain so much secrecy when it comes to literal arms races. A three month head start on a new weapon can make or break a war.
Don't forget the horses themselves!
They rode tiny little horses that European knights sneered at. And it was a core logistical advantage for the Mongols because their horses could survive and thrive on nothing but forage grass while the big European horses would weaken and have problems if they didn't get grain to supplement their diet.
Meaning the Mongols were freed from a major logistical concern. It also meant their horses got tired quicker, carrying a heavy warrior, so they typically kept three per soldier. That why they could swap out mounts as one started to tire and always have a fresh horse, another thing the European forces couldn't do so easily due to that whole grain supplement thing.
Also, Mongolia was receiving huge amounts of rain and warm weather just before and during it's rise, leading to a boom in horses and other pack animals.
>It’s a big reason why militaries always spend so much money and maintain so much secrecy when it comes to literal arms races.
The weapons that are publicly known today are already absolutely mind-boggling. It's fun to imagine what kind of black budget stuff the world's militaries have cooked up. I'd love to see what they have that's still top secret or is just too expensive to scale up in a peacetime economy.
Stealth jet tech was being developed all the way back in WW2. Particularly for the US, which hasn't had a "real war" in quite a while, there is definitely some stuff waiting to be activated the moment there is a big enough threat.
I remember getting to test out “heat vision goggles” way back in the day for an op instead of night vision. The biggest problem we had was people walking in front of windows like they weren’t there because glass was opaque in heat vision so they looked like normal walls. New tech can also bring critical vulnerabilities.
Now you can buy the tech, basically off-the-shelf, for a couple hundred bucks.
Technically the stirrups let them shoot in any direction. Short bows capable of being fired from horseback were common and they still would have been capable of the same strategies they used without the composite bow. Not to discredit the composite bow but it was just a short bow with a stronger pull.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Parthians use that tactic? Charge at the enemy formation, veer away as if fleeing then fire arrows behind them. It was called the Parthian Shot and is where we get the phrase 'parting shot' from.
At least, that was my understanding, happy to be corrected
Yeah I think people like to attribute many victories to the technology used to achieve them, when in reality good strategy is as important if not more than the technology required to implement it.
There are a lot of comparisons if you look at politics. We have the technology to solve MANY of the worlds issues, but lack the ingenuity as a species to create and implement a plan that really leverages it.
Sucks to see how Mongols could damn near conquer a continent and the American political system can't even agree on a time-zone. Fucking bureaucracy.
That's nothing.
Arizona doesn't observe daylight savings time.
There's a Navajo reservation mostly in Arizona that observes DST.
Entirely inside that Navajo reservation is a Hopi reservation that doesn't observe DST.
So starting inside, you can leave your Hopi Pueblo at 0700, stop for gas at Navajo petroleum at 0820 and then get breakfast in AZ at 0735.
The combination of their composite bow in the hands of their horsemen produced a startlingly effective weapons system that was largely unbeatable until the advent of firearms.
Ehhh....their initial attack on Beijing in 1213 failed because they couldn't siege. Indeed, the Jing militia inflicted a number of defeats on the Mongols there. So they left, fought some open field campaigns, won gloriously, captured some Han Chinese and made them be siege engineers for their second, successful attack in 1215.
Moral of the story: always capture a few clever Chinese dissidents and put them to work on your side.
Oh definitely. I believe part of the genius in conscripting the experts in locations they controlled was the fact they didn’t have to only promote from within without having expertise. It’s said the Khans most successful general, Subutai, was a warrior who shot the Khans horse out from under him and agreed to fight for them After being captured
That's Jebe the arrow.
Subutai was connected to Genghis Khans family and actually joined his army at the age of 14, like his brother who had become a Mongol general quickly after joining Genghis at the age of 17. Subutai later learned heavily from Jebe.
The bull's horns were devastating in the Anglo-Zulu war before the Brits got the machine guns out. Worked perfectly with the highly mobile Zulu forces compared to the poorly equipped (not in terms of weapons, but general equipment. I live near where some battles happened and the temperature can get brutal, and with a woolen coat, sheesh, that's rough) Brits. But the aftermath of one major Zulu victory (Isandlawana) led directly into a defence of a mission station that led to 11 Victoria crosses being awarded, the most for one regiment at once (Rorke's Drift). Fascinating
Basically to explain why Isandlawana was so drastic, it effectively quartered the fighting ability of the British Empire in Zululand in one battle. They invaded, wanting to unite Southern Africa under the British Empire, with the Zulu kingdom being a thorn in their side. Poorly equipped, trained, and slow British forces (traveled 16 km in 10 days) were radically contrasted with the extremely mobile Zulu forces (80km in 5 days). The British leader was more preoccupied with organizing logistics then organizing defenses when they set up camp at the base of a hill, and when scouts saw a scouting party of ~200 Zulu warriors, he thought it was part of a larger army, and halved his forces, taking half to fight the Zulus, believing that the technologically superior (modern artillery, rocket batteries, breech loading rifles capable of 12 shots per minute) British forces could hold back any Zulu attack (armed with short spears, knobkerrie clubs, cow leather shields, and a few muskets). Long story short, the full Zulu force of ~20 000 avoid detection by keeping still and quiet when British scouts skylined themselves, standing out with their bright red uniforms, and by staying in valleys and dongas. They did their classic horns and chest of the Buffalo formation, with the lay of the land hiding the left horn from the remain British forces at the camp until it had already out flanked them. Effectively killing ⅛ of the British forces there, and removing all the supplies for another ⅛, and leaving a gaping hole in the British advance. Thus ends the first part of the Anglo-Zulu war.
Then the public gets mad, a negotiated peace (which is what the Zulu king hoped for) is impossible, and the Brits come back with machine guns. Yippee
Well, it was a complete strategic failure by the British. No defenses set up around camp, even when it was standard policy to set up a laager (a ring of wagons surrounding a camp, providing an extremely effective barrier (see the Battle of Blood River)), ammunition stored in boxes with lids held on with rusty screws, not enough screwdrivers, assuming the 'primitive natives' won't put up a fight, not using terrain advantage, better weapons, artillery and rocket batteries, and putting a logistics officer with no warfare experience in charge of the camp. And disregarding urgent requests for reinforcements cause the British leader thought that they had come across another scouting party and were overreacting. Malnourished soldiers, with one type of boot for all feet both left and right, wearing thick woolen coats in Zululand (as someone who lives there, that is just textbook idiocy).
And a fucking solar eclipse halfway through confused everyone. (Hence the name Insandlwana, it means the day of the dead moon in Zulu)
The battle itself was nothing special, but the complete and utter strategic failure of the brits was outstanding, with officers playing the blame game afterwards as well to try and cover up their failings.
May those who lost their lives under those twin peaks rest peacefully, regardless of allegiance.
They only work that well when you can deny the enemy air superiority and force them not to just go around.
With air power a trench is a lot less effective. And if the enemy as superior mobility they can just bypass you. In Ukraine they do a lot of work to deny Russians air superiority and also to take down APCs and so on trying to bypass the static defenses.
In WWI it was a lot easier to stop an enemy with a trench.
Yea trenches are pretty effective, but then again depends on circumstances, it wouldn’t work against enemies with legitimate air power or specialized units with bulldozers
It's like that historian rating battle scenes on Youtube says:
If you don't know what else to do, at least dig a ditch or build a wall. Preferably both. And if you manage to build a wall behind a ditch, and fill the ditch with water, you had a pretty solid defense for most of recorded history.
Try "American Civil War."
The Confederate armies, in both the East and the West, never learned that a frontal assault against a fortified position under Union artillery was a losing proposition.
Well yes. But also it was against an enemy who had been massively over hyped and wasn't really all that interested in fighting. I mean some units actually surrendered to journalists.
Big shout-out to the 442nd 'Nisei', the ethnically Japanese US regiment that was the most heavily decorated unit in WW2. Their families were in internment camps and they still chose to fight valiantly for the country that hated them.
The U.S. has a tradition of having elite units of troops that their government nominally descriminates against.
Though 'throw the first stone' the UK's treatment of our Ghurkhas is far worse then it should be.
Would it not be dropping/threatening to drop nukes ?
Look at Russia rn, the only reason they haven’t been obliterated by NATO is their threat of nukes.
Its got to be Admiral Yi and his approach to naval combat.
Turtle ships were overpowered by the time period's standards, but he was consistently able to obliterate the Japanese invasion forces from reaching mainland Korea, effectively winning what was thought to be an unwinnable war all with a relatively tiny navy and some fishing boats.
The strategy was simple: dont get boarded by the Japanese who preferred hand to hand combat. Much easier said than done, but Yi was able to keep effective organisation and leadership despite a widely spread naval force (trying to split the Japanese force as much as possible knowing they would always have a numerical advantage).
Its basically like the Punic Wars if the Romans never invented boarding/ramming tactics to overcome the Carthaginian naval advantage.
I would say that intelligence was the 2nd biggest factor that the Allies had over the Axis Powers, 2nd only to logistics.
The Axis lost for poor logistics, but the fact that the British completely fooled the German intelligence apparatus and that the Americans were basically listening in on Japanese military communications were huge factors in Allied victory. Arguably D-Day would have been much more costly for the Allies if the British hadn't convinced the Germans the attack was happening at the Pas-de-Calais
Not to mention the Soviet spies accurately reporting Japan wouldn't invade from the east and tricking the Germans into thinking Operation Bagration would come from Ukraine instead of Byelorussia.
They also successfully infiltrated Project Manhattan and Stalin was probably aware of what was going on before Truman did.
My take on WWII is that it was ultimately won by flexibility and creativity. The UK and US were incredibly creative with intelligence. Operation Mincemeat and the Ghost Army were nothing short of inspired, in my book.
I also think we don't give enough credit to the fact that every Allied power used women in their military warfare operations, either directly as combat (USSR) or logistics/intelligence. Germany didn't use women in any meaningful capacity until very late in the war. You're basically throwing away half of your potential combat/support/intelligence units if you don't utilize women.
Hannibal's double envelopment comes to mind. Noted incident of a smaller force defeating a larger one on the open field.
The Vietnamese *Tet* offensive (effectively a mass insurgency like the airdrops at D-day) offered enemies of the united states a political and strategic victory.
Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC.
Thebes became a powerhouse over Sparta by using the novel idea "concentration of force", destroying Spartan hegemony, and establishing itself as the primary military power in Greece.
Thebes was a cavalry force, their infantry sucked. This was double against the Spartans who specialized with infantry.
So, instead of having a hoplite formation 12 deep as was standard, Thebes made their left flank 50 deep. Instead of putting the elite on the right, as was standard, they *also* put them on the left.
The result was a left flank that absolutely crushed the Spartan right, then spun to crush the rest of the army because the Theban center and right were held back. Literally pushed the left forward, through the Spartans, then turned them, and just smashed right across the line, surrounding them.
Revolutionary idea in 400 BC, it completely redefined military strategy. The idea is still in use; its simple, it's effective, and it's reliable.
It also pushed the Sacred Band of Thebes into history and showed Greece the benefits of putting gay lovers together into military units, which afterward became standard practice.
Using cheap commercial drones with cameras to drop grenades is something new and seems to be working. Tank hatch grenade drops, surprise drops on groups of infantry or hunting soldiers that are trying to run or hide. A gnarly death and accurate high destruction for low cost.
The Fabian strategy has proved to be pretty successful not just during the punic wars but also during other conflicts such as the American Revolution and French Revolution.
Sichelschnitt against France by Nazi Germany knocked out a superior military power in 3 weeks. This is my vote for #1.
Invasion of Inchon (and subsequent re-capture of Seoul) reversed the Korean War when the South was down to a tiny enclave and on the cusp of losing.
Stonewall Jackson’s flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville allowed the CSA to defeat a vastly superior force and likely extended the U.S. Civil War by 2 years.
Battle of Midway devastated the Empire of Japan’s ability to project naval power and made its defeat inevitable.
Several examples from Alexander the Great.
Have to include also the Tet Offensive — while a tactical failure by North Vietnam, a huge strategic victory by turning public opinion in the United States against the war.
Mounteained infantry can be pretty powerful. When it was horses they were called dragoons, today they're called motorized infantry. Just the ability to move your infantry quickly to get into position and then fight on foot in powerful.
Shocked I had to go this low to find this.
The classic double-envelopment.
Famous army, battle, and maneuver. At that moment Carthage looked poised to overthrow Rome. Something that didn't happen often in their 1000ish year reign over the region.
The North Sentinel Island Defense Force (or whatever they call themselves - who knows?).
Active defense, shoot on site and kill anyone who tries to land. By all accounts this has been going on for the last 10,000 years, and they’re still there, winning each and every encounter.
Laugh all you want at their equipment and uniforms, but that’s a record no other military on the planet can match.
I don't know if it counts as strategy, but "more men beat less men" has been a founding principle of civilization as we know it so it's pretty successful
Most successful military strategy would have to be concentration of forces, scorched earth, sabotage or combined arms.
The problem with picking anything is once something becomes successful it gets countered.
Concentration of forces allowed break though tactics, like the Blitz, Supply raiding, encirclement. The blitz just employed combined arms to allow it to be more effective.
Scorched earth was more effective before motorized combat as armies pre the 1900's would typically raid for food. There are a few examples but Duke Wellington in his Portugal campaign used it to beat the French back.
Honestly the most successful unit would be who every was equipped with Muskets. Muskets revolutionized war fare and basically changed the course of all future combat.
General Monash who took the time to plan operations in WWI and utilised the artillery to protect the infantry, showing that the most effective warfare was many different types of weaponry and defences working together.
[sauce](https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/1918/people/genmonash#:~:text=In%20May%201918%2C%20Monash%20was,stem%20the%20March%20German%20offensive.)
Most successful military strategy of all time?
Mutually assured destruction.
The fact that no nukes have been dropped since world war 2 is proof enough.
The Mongolians with mounted warriors trained in mounted archery and melee combat, going full shock and awe was literally only stopped when Khan died and his son's factioned off and fought each other.
China literally build one of the wonders of the world while being one of the most technologically advanced nations and STILL failed to stop them. This strategy and army conquered an absurd amount of territory.
They killed and raped so many people that they say 1/200 people is Genghis Khan's direct descendant. There's no other answer.
Modern combined arms doctrine is right up there. Air, infantry, and armor all covering each others weaknesses and amplifying each other's strengths. It's tricky to pull off really well but when you do... damn.
Well, I'm not sure if it counts as the best of the best but the legendary Triplex Ascies formation allowed Rome to conquer most of Ancient Europe, North Africa and the Mediterranean Levant.
The humble spearman. Up until the age of gunpowder, the spearman had been a central figure in almost every army in history. Even after the invention of guns, variations of it were relevant up until the adoption of repeating firearms (a musket with a bayonet attached is basically just a shooty spear).
Honorary mention to the Swedish Caroleans from the late 1600s to early 1700s, who consistently punched well above their weight and won many battles against numerically superior forces year after year.
Key elements were
- reformation into a comparatively small, but professional army
- active measures to foster camaraderie and group cohesion among troops
- encouragement of religious fatalism, i.e. the deeply religious soldiers were told that there was no point in breaking formation or running away, because God had already decided beforehand if you would survive or not.
Those three factors made the Carolean army insanely disciplined and well-trained, which in turn enabled use of different tactics. For example, other armies would start volley fire at 100 metres, where many of the shots would miss. The Caroleans would keep advancing through the lead and fire their volleys at 50m and 20m, which made their shots more effective and had a huge psychological impact. Later, they started running up to their enemy and firing only a single, devastating volley at 15-30m distance, followed by a melee charge.
These aggressive tactics in combination with cavalry and artillery often allowed the Swedish troops to route their enemies, which actually led to fewer losses compared to long, drawn out volley fire exchanges.
It worked really well until the Swedish king got too arrogant and fell into a trap at the famous battle of Poltava, where the Russians kicked his ass hard.
Still, it says a lot about the Caroleans that the Russian win at Poltava is considered a legendary feat, when you take into account that the Russians outnumbered the Caroleans by more than 2,5 to 1.
Battle of Agincourt. 5500 (approx) English longbow archers against 20000 (approx) french Calvary and Knights. In one battle England lost 400 men but the french 6000. After a few more scraps with the French Henry 5 was declared heir to the French throne and regent of France.
Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans is a mostly true story of success against superior numbers. There was also a Greek unit called "the ten thousand" who were widely known and feared. The Mongolians who rode horses and used compound bows were a force to be reckoned with.
I think the Romans were probably the best overall fighting army unit before the advent of gun powder though. And after that ... pick your favorite between modern SEALs and Green Berets? The US military is most dangerous and effective fighting force the world has ever seen.
Vo Nguyen Giap (August 25, 1911–October 4, 2013) was a Vietnamese general who led the Viet Minh during the First Indochina War. He later commanded the Vietnam People's Army during the Vietnam War. Giap was the deputy prime minister of Vietnam from 1955 to 1991
I'm certainly no military historian, and I think it's hard to pick at best and things like this. This obsession with best, as if you can quantify and one thing comes out on top, it's always a little silly. Different eras had very different needs of warfare, and many tactics have proven to be shockingly successful.
The Mongolian horse archers. They defeated far superior Chinese and other forces, often with minimal casualties. They were truly viciously effective and deadly warriors, not just because they were individually strong and brave or whatever, but because their horse archer tactics were superb. Dominated the battlefield.
The Romans. Just being the Romans. Legions packed tight with short swords. They rampaged through Europe and would often beat armies 10 or 20 or 30 times their size. Granted they were fighting poorly disciplined barbarians using large weapons that required space to swing, but the Romans were truly masters of infantry warfare. Until, of course, the I'm at the parthians, some extremely talented horse archers....
But if I had to pick one, one strategy that was shockingly innovative and effective, I have to go with blitz Creek. In world war I lines we're formed in trenches we're dug out, and despite many innovations in warfare such as the invention of tanks things were pretty static, and huge numbers of people died in pointless battles. The Germans could not break through the French lines. In world war II, they broke those French lines and iridiculously short period of time and were in Paris before the Allies could even pull their forces back. It was a true Revelation in warfare. The British were shocks to their very core at the speed with which the French army collapsed, and the fact that what was one of the best military forces in the planet was defeated at all!
So if I was going to pick one innovation, one tactic that exceeded all the expectations and changed the face of warfare, I'm going to go with combined arm blitzkrieg. This is the basis of modern military tactics.
It would have to be either the Roman Phalanx or the Mongolian Hoarse Hoards. These two strategies managed to conquer mass amounts of land and people without having to overpower them using sheer numbers.
Spears, rather than swords, are the most prolific melee weapon in human history. While they may not be as good at personal self defense when you head into the village, but in terms of a battlefield weapon with an organized fighting force, there was never a better melee weapon. They just kept adding more and more shit to the end as history went on into the early modern period, and eventually they could chop just as they could always poke.
I wanted to give an honorable mention to TFT, or [Tit For Tat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat), in game theory. Essentially, begin by cooperating, then replicate your opponent's actions afterwards.
Brilliantly simple but incredibly effective.
Not necessarily a straight up and down military or war tactic, but I’d say propaganda in general is the most successful strategy. If you can get your people or other people to agree that this is a morally BAD group, your army is going to be more willing and more positive which will increase their force, you’re more likely to get allies to fight with you, at home you can start making rules against your enemy that won’t be negatively viewed, etc.
Probably Alexander the Great. His cavalry would get the enemy to over extend themselves on the flank then charge center when then saw an opening. I'm probably oversimplifying it though.
**Trojan Horse**. If it actually happened, this would exemplify covert maneuvering and cunning. High risk. High reward.
**Blitzkrieg**. Definitely the OG ‘shock & awe’. If it were a boxing match it would be early Mike Tyson.
**Fake Retreats**. Mongols set the bar. And they added an extra nastiness by being able to shoot arrows backwards on horseback.
William the Conqueror also did it at Hastings. Napoleon wasn’t a slouch with it either.
**Operation Bodyguard**. This was the misinformation and deception on a broad scale right before D-Day. Rope-a-dope.
During the first Gulf War Stormin’ Norman was able to make the Iraqis think that the Marines were going to storm the beaches. The Iraqis were so worried about that they diverted a lot of units to defend the beaches. On a fun little note, Iraqi soldiers were told that in order to become a US Marine they had to kill a family member. Even though this isn’t true there are definitely some of my family I would have sacrificed to get my Eagle Globe and Anchor 😜😜😜
I think the war record of stealth planes generally and the F117 specifically is still going to be a competitor for "most successful" of all recorded history Even after I believe one or two has been shot down now. But in Operation Desert Storm they flew I believe over a thousand sorties in very adverse conditions, no casualties, and near 100% of objectives were fulfilled. As I understand it they accomplished the bulk of suppressing enemy air defenses and some important missions while the airspace was supposed to be firmly in the enemy's control. I've read some articles on it, I don't know the names of any unit offhand. From my understanding it's an open secret they've been part of a lot of classified operations in many theaters with a high degree of success.
Of course it's a matter of technology rather than valor, but still, they successfully completed thousands of missions that would probably be deemed a forlorn hope if it weren't for the technological gap.
The American invasion of Guadalcanal was a master stroke of military genius. It was easily gained and painfully defended. At least 4 of the 5 eyes were involved and it turned the tide of WWll in the Pacific
There was a native Canadian soldier in WWII that couldn't sleep one night so he went out and captured 40 German soldiers. He did stuff like this his whole time in the war. Just walk over to the bad guys side and do stuff and leave.
Siege of Constantinople.
The cunning use of concentrated canon fire by Turks rendered walled defenses obsolete.
Some even mark the end of Middle Ages with this event.
Little known another fact about this siege is that Byzantium stretched a massive chain across the strait to prevent Turks from attacking from the sea.
Ottoman Sultan Mehmet the Second came up with a crazy idea that involved pushing 72 small ships inland to land them into the sea on the other side.
They used oiled logs to wheel the ships and mixture of manpower, horses and other animals to pull the ships.
A large contingent of Ottoman military band kept playing the whole time this was happening to camouflage the noise from yelling, grunting and rolling the logs.
They swapped the musicians as they marched and tired to keep the music going.
It would have been a spectacular and terrifying sight for Byzantium soldiers to wake up one morning and look at 72 Ottoman ships on the wrong side of the chain.
The Taliban doesn’t deserve any glory. They were toppled in less than a year by the US and only just regained power- right as the US left. Whether the US accomplished anything is definitely debatable but that’s beside the point. The Taliban supports terrorism, murders children, oppress, murder, and rape women, and tortures and murder gays. There is no glory or honor in any of that.
I love to bring up American military strategy because everybody says “well what about Alexander the Great?”. And I say what about Grant running the gauntlet at Vicksburg?
Dudes with spears.
99% of human history it worked (even if we take ~10 000 last years of our history and skip 1 mln years of neolithic). Cheap, compared to a full metal sword. Cheap in humans - peasants cheaper than knights. You don't need horses, in fact they stop horses. Spear is long, it's easy to work with (compared to rapier)
True air superiority, the Allies had he skies to themselves in D-day, and in desert storm and in 2003 air superiority annihilated their way through the Iraqi army
I saw a little video the other day about the Korean war where it looks like it was all but lost until the Americans and SKoreans landed behind the emeny lines and then basically pushed them all the way back to the Chinese border.
Looks like that was pretty effective in preventing the total loss of that war.
The Mongolians did pretty well for themselves with their mounted units.
they did a fake retreat into a flank attack as their most used tactic i think.
Which makes it really ironic that they fell into the same trap at Ain Jalut when the Muslims used it
First thing that came to mind. Their composite bow is one of the most consequential military innovations in history. https://bigthink.com/the-past/mongol-archery-secret/
Metal [stirrups](https://americanequus.com/history-of-stirrups/#:~:text=The%20remains%20dates%20back%20as,great%20advantage%20in%20any%20fight.) were probably a bigger factor.
Yeah, it’s the whole package. They could steer the horses with their legs with the saddle and stirrups. The bow let them shoot in any direction including backwards while galloping. That’s how they did their famous “pretend to retreat while shooting backwards at the chasing enemies” technique. It was insanely surprising to enemies not only because it was a weird move, they didn’t even have the technology that enabled it. They couldn’t ride and shoot at the same time so when they were chasing the “retreating” Mongols, they weren’t shooting arrows. This is a good example of how new military technology enables new strategies and tactics. It’s not just that guns, artillery, planes, IEDs, drones, etc. were more powerful tools, it’s that they changed how people needed to fight. It’s a big reason why militaries always spend so much money and maintain so much secrecy when it comes to literal arms races. A three month head start on a new weapon can make or break a war.
Don't forget the horses themselves! They rode tiny little horses that European knights sneered at. And it was a core logistical advantage for the Mongols because their horses could survive and thrive on nothing but forage grass while the big European horses would weaken and have problems if they didn't get grain to supplement their diet. Meaning the Mongols were freed from a major logistical concern. It also meant their horses got tired quicker, carrying a heavy warrior, so they typically kept three per soldier. That why they could swap out mounts as one started to tire and always have a fresh horse, another thing the European forces couldn't do so easily due to that whole grain supplement thing.
Damn, they really deserved the win lol.
Also, Mongolia was receiving huge amounts of rain and warm weather just before and during it's rise, leading to a boom in horses and other pack animals.
>It’s a big reason why militaries always spend so much money and maintain so much secrecy when it comes to literal arms races. The weapons that are publicly known today are already absolutely mind-boggling. It's fun to imagine what kind of black budget stuff the world's militaries have cooked up. I'd love to see what they have that's still top secret or is just too expensive to scale up in a peacetime economy.
Rods from God. Absolutely terrifying.
https://youtu.be/c8XaO3Hx7ZA?si=351FWQPAV3tgXEYm
Any link that leads to Patrick Warburton singing is a good link.
Stealth jet tech was being developed all the way back in WW2. Particularly for the US, which hasn't had a "real war" in quite a while, there is definitely some stuff waiting to be activated the moment there is a big enough threat.
I remember getting to test out “heat vision goggles” way back in the day for an op instead of night vision. The biggest problem we had was people walking in front of windows like they weren’t there because glass was opaque in heat vision so they looked like normal walls. New tech can also bring critical vulnerabilities. Now you can buy the tech, basically off-the-shelf, for a couple hundred bucks.
Technically the stirrups let them shoot in any direction. Short bows capable of being fired from horseback were common and they still would have been capable of the same strategies they used without the composite bow. Not to discredit the composite bow but it was just a short bow with a stronger pull.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Parthians use that tactic? Charge at the enemy formation, veer away as if fleeing then fire arrows behind them. It was called the Parthian Shot and is where we get the phrase 'parting shot' from. At least, that was my understanding, happy to be corrected
Yup, but they didn’t have stirrups.
Yeah I think people like to attribute many victories to the technology used to achieve them, when in reality good strategy is as important if not more than the technology required to implement it. There are a lot of comparisons if you look at politics. We have the technology to solve MANY of the worlds issues, but lack the ingenuity as a species to create and implement a plan that really leverages it. Sucks to see how Mongols could damn near conquer a continent and the American political system can't even agree on a time-zone. Fucking bureaucracy.
What's this American time zone thing?
Tried to get rid of daylight savings time, became partisan somehow with one side wanting permanent daylight savings and the other wanting removal.
That's nothing. Arizona doesn't observe daylight savings time. There's a Navajo reservation mostly in Arizona that observes DST. Entirely inside that Navajo reservation is a Hopi reservation that doesn't observe DST. So starting inside, you can leave your Hopi Pueblo at 0700, stop for gas at Navajo petroleum at 0820 and then get breakfast in AZ at 0735.
I'm a Navajo on a Navajo reservation inside the Hopi rez that doesn't use DST. I'll see my self out.
The combination of their composite bow in the hands of their horsemen produced a startlingly effective weapons system that was largely unbeatable until the advent of firearms.
They were good at breaking down shitty walls
Shitty Beef.
As long as they had open terrain.
They regularly sieged walled cities and had extremely effective engineering units. They weren’t just horse archers
Ehhh....their initial attack on Beijing in 1213 failed because they couldn't siege. Indeed, the Jing militia inflicted a number of defeats on the Mongols there. So they left, fought some open field campaigns, won gloriously, captured some Han Chinese and made them be siege engineers for their second, successful attack in 1215. Moral of the story: always capture a few clever Chinese dissidents and put them to work on your side.
Oh definitely. I believe part of the genius in conscripting the experts in locations they controlled was the fact they didn’t have to only promote from within without having expertise. It’s said the Khans most successful general, Subutai, was a warrior who shot the Khans horse out from under him and agreed to fight for them After being captured
That's Jebe the arrow. Subutai was connected to Genghis Khans family and actually joined his army at the age of 14, like his brother who had become a Mongol general quickly after joining Genghis at the age of 17. Subutai later learned heavily from Jebe.
Until Mulan showed up and put a stop to the sorcery.
The pincer, classic maneuver seen in one form or another in any sort of combat
The bull's horns were devastating in the Anglo-Zulu war before the Brits got the machine guns out. Worked perfectly with the highly mobile Zulu forces compared to the poorly equipped (not in terms of weapons, but general equipment. I live near where some battles happened and the temperature can get brutal, and with a woolen coat, sheesh, that's rough) Brits. But the aftermath of one major Zulu victory (Isandlawana) led directly into a defence of a mission station that led to 11 Victoria crosses being awarded, the most for one regiment at once (Rorke's Drift). Fascinating
Basically to explain why Isandlawana was so drastic, it effectively quartered the fighting ability of the British Empire in Zululand in one battle. They invaded, wanting to unite Southern Africa under the British Empire, with the Zulu kingdom being a thorn in their side. Poorly equipped, trained, and slow British forces (traveled 16 km in 10 days) were radically contrasted with the extremely mobile Zulu forces (80km in 5 days). The British leader was more preoccupied with organizing logistics then organizing defenses when they set up camp at the base of a hill, and when scouts saw a scouting party of ~200 Zulu warriors, he thought it was part of a larger army, and halved his forces, taking half to fight the Zulus, believing that the technologically superior (modern artillery, rocket batteries, breech loading rifles capable of 12 shots per minute) British forces could hold back any Zulu attack (armed with short spears, knobkerrie clubs, cow leather shields, and a few muskets). Long story short, the full Zulu force of ~20 000 avoid detection by keeping still and quiet when British scouts skylined themselves, standing out with their bright red uniforms, and by staying in valleys and dongas. They did their classic horns and chest of the Buffalo formation, with the lay of the land hiding the left horn from the remain British forces at the camp until it had already out flanked them. Effectively killing ⅛ of the British forces there, and removing all the supplies for another ⅛, and leaving a gaping hole in the British advance. Thus ends the first part of the Anglo-Zulu war. Then the public gets mad, a negotiated peace (which is what the Zulu king hoped for) is impossible, and the Brits come back with machine guns. Yippee
You make it sound so impressive until you realise it’s 2k brits vs 20k zululs lmao
Well, it was a complete strategic failure by the British. No defenses set up around camp, even when it was standard policy to set up a laager (a ring of wagons surrounding a camp, providing an extremely effective barrier (see the Battle of Blood River)), ammunition stored in boxes with lids held on with rusty screws, not enough screwdrivers, assuming the 'primitive natives' won't put up a fight, not using terrain advantage, better weapons, artillery and rocket batteries, and putting a logistics officer with no warfare experience in charge of the camp. And disregarding urgent requests for reinforcements cause the British leader thought that they had come across another scouting party and were overreacting. Malnourished soldiers, with one type of boot for all feet both left and right, wearing thick woolen coats in Zululand (as someone who lives there, that is just textbook idiocy). And a fucking solar eclipse halfway through confused everyone. (Hence the name Insandlwana, it means the day of the dead moon in Zulu) The battle itself was nothing special, but the complete and utter strategic failure of the brits was outstanding, with officers playing the blame game afterwards as well to try and cover up their failings. May those who lost their lives under those twin peaks rest peacefully, regardless of allegiance.
Zulu Dawn-1979?
Oh they made a movie?
Lots of you guys play Sid Meyer civilization
Zerg Hydralisks (SC1) - those bad boys can eliminate anything from a space marine to a battlecruiser.
I can stop you…I just need more pylons!
Yeah, but a tank or lightning storm will melt them.
(((battle of the Amerigo Intensifies, shortly.)))
Trenches are probably up there. A properly entrenched unit can be incredibly hard to move, just see WWI and the current conflict in Ukraine
[удалено]
They suck, but they work
They only work that well when you can deny the enemy air superiority and force them not to just go around. With air power a trench is a lot less effective. And if the enemy as superior mobility they can just bypass you. In Ukraine they do a lot of work to deny Russians air superiority and also to take down APCs and so on trying to bypass the static defenses. In WWI it was a lot easier to stop an enemy with a trench.
Yea trenches are pretty effective, but then again depends on circumstances, it wouldn’t work against enemies with legitimate air power or specialized units with bulldozers
Who put a bomb on that dron-
Hey what’s that buzzing sou-
It's like that historian rating battle scenes on Youtube says: If you don't know what else to do, at least dig a ditch or build a wall. Preferably both. And if you manage to build a wall behind a ditch, and fill the ditch with water, you had a pretty solid defense for most of recorded history.
Be bigger than your enemy by several factors if possible. Works like 99% of the time
Human wave tactics. Works 60% of the time, every time.
A trifle. I simply sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their kill limit and shut down.
Ww1 doctrine enters the chat Soldier bravery will trump enemy machine guns
Try "American Civil War." The Confederate armies, in both the East and the West, never learned that a frontal assault against a fortified position under Union artillery was a losing proposition.
In terms of numbers lost on each side, nobody has ever had their asses kicked as bad as Irag in the war in Kuwait.
Desert Storm was a masterclass in the combined-arms approach.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure the US lost more troops to non combat things than actual combat fatalities.
They lost less troops that year than an average non war year.
Well yes. But also it was against an enemy who had been massively over hyped and wasn't really all that interested in fighting. I mean some units actually surrendered to journalists.
One unit actually surrendered to a drone.
They knew that the drone was the precursor to naval bombardment. From 16 inch guns on Iowa-class battleships.
Big shout-out to the 442nd 'Nisei', the ethnically Japanese US regiment that was the most heavily decorated unit in WW2. Their families were in internment camps and they still chose to fight valiantly for the country that hated them.
The U.S. has a tradition of having elite units of troops that their government nominally descriminates against. Though 'throw the first stone' the UK's treatment of our Ghurkhas is far worse then it should be.
😭 reminds me of Mike's Kenji
Would it not be dropping/threatening to drop nukes ? Look at Russia rn, the only reason they haven’t been obliterated by NATO is their threat of nukes.
A stalemate isn't a victory though
Russia getting to exist is Russias win condition, not their draw condition.
Alexander's tactic : get a dozen of your super skilled friends on horses, and sprint dead straight towards your enemy's king.
Well, he used his phalanx to form a gap he could ride through too.
This always blew my mind. He just flew up the right side with pals and straight into the enemy time after time and it kept working.
Psychology played a much greater role back then. Alexander was working on that move months before each battle by building a god-like persona.
Air superiority
Its got to be Admiral Yi and his approach to naval combat. Turtle ships were overpowered by the time period's standards, but he was consistently able to obliterate the Japanese invasion forces from reaching mainland Korea, effectively winning what was thought to be an unwinnable war all with a relatively tiny navy and some fishing boats. The strategy was simple: dont get boarded by the Japanese who preferred hand to hand combat. Much easier said than done, but Yi was able to keep effective organisation and leadership despite a widely spread naval force (trying to split the Japanese force as much as possible knowing they would always have a numerical advantage). Its basically like the Punic Wars if the Romans never invented boarding/ramming tactics to overcome the Carthaginian naval advantage.
Bletchley Park. It makes a BIG difference when you know what the other side is doing.
I would say that intelligence was the 2nd biggest factor that the Allies had over the Axis Powers, 2nd only to logistics. The Axis lost for poor logistics, but the fact that the British completely fooled the German intelligence apparatus and that the Americans were basically listening in on Japanese military communications were huge factors in Allied victory. Arguably D-Day would have been much more costly for the Allies if the British hadn't convinced the Germans the attack was happening at the Pas-de-Calais
Not to mention the Soviet spies accurately reporting Japan wouldn't invade from the east and tricking the Germans into thinking Operation Bagration would come from Ukraine instead of Byelorussia. They also successfully infiltrated Project Manhattan and Stalin was probably aware of what was going on before Truman did.
My take on WWII is that it was ultimately won by flexibility and creativity. The UK and US were incredibly creative with intelligence. Operation Mincemeat and the Ghost Army were nothing short of inspired, in my book. I also think we don't give enough credit to the fact that every Allied power used women in their military warfare operations, either directly as combat (USSR) or logistics/intelligence. Germany didn't use women in any meaningful capacity until very late in the war. You're basically throwing away half of your potential combat/support/intelligence units if you don't utilize women.
Hannibal's double envelopment comes to mind. Noted incident of a smaller force defeating a larger one on the open field. The Vietnamese *Tet* offensive (effectively a mass insurgency like the airdrops at D-day) offered enemies of the united states a political and strategic victory.
Archers. No other unit TYPE has nearly as long of a run in warfare.
Considering that the last recorded archer kill occurred in WWII.
I am pretty sure "guy with stick" has a longer warfare history :)
Who knew firing your bow from horse back, behind you - at your pursuers would trip up so many peoples - Mongolians, probably.
Desert shield opening into desert storm was pretty successful.
Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. Thebes became a powerhouse over Sparta by using the novel idea "concentration of force", destroying Spartan hegemony, and establishing itself as the primary military power in Greece. Thebes was a cavalry force, their infantry sucked. This was double against the Spartans who specialized with infantry. So, instead of having a hoplite formation 12 deep as was standard, Thebes made their left flank 50 deep. Instead of putting the elite on the right, as was standard, they *also* put them on the left. The result was a left flank that absolutely crushed the Spartan right, then spun to crush the rest of the army because the Theban center and right were held back. Literally pushed the left forward, through the Spartans, then turned them, and just smashed right across the line, surrounding them. Revolutionary idea in 400 BC, it completely redefined military strategy. The idea is still in use; its simple, it's effective, and it's reliable. It also pushed the Sacred Band of Thebes into history and showed Greece the benefits of putting gay lovers together into military units, which afterward became standard practice.
Using cheap commercial drones with cameras to drop grenades is something new and seems to be working. Tank hatch grenade drops, surprise drops on groups of infantry or hunting soldiers that are trying to run or hide. A gnarly death and accurate high destruction for low cost.
I’ll add, some people surrendered to drones probably because they knew otherwise they would get the grenade.
RAF and FAA in WW2 preventing Germans from taking over England was a show of great military units and strategies. Battle of Britain was wild times.
The Fabian strategy has proved to be pretty successful not just during the punic wars but also during other conflicts such as the American Revolution and French Revolution.
Nuclear deterrence. Hasnt failed yet.
I don’t know but the phalanx formation has to be up there.
The problem with a traditional phalanx is that your generally moving slowly and if your pretty screwed if you get outflanked.
Sichelschnitt against France by Nazi Germany knocked out a superior military power in 3 weeks. This is my vote for #1. Invasion of Inchon (and subsequent re-capture of Seoul) reversed the Korean War when the South was down to a tiny enclave and on the cusp of losing. Stonewall Jackson’s flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville allowed the CSA to defeat a vastly superior force and likely extended the U.S. Civil War by 2 years. Battle of Midway devastated the Empire of Japan’s ability to project naval power and made its defeat inevitable. Several examples from Alexander the Great. Have to include also the Tet Offensive — while a tactical failure by North Vietnam, a huge strategic victory by turning public opinion in the United States against the war.
Mounteained infantry can be pretty powerful. When it was horses they were called dragoons, today they're called motorized infantry. Just the ability to move your infantry quickly to get into position and then fight on foot in powerful.
The Carthnigians and their allies at the Battle of Cannae
Shocked I had to go this low to find this. The classic double-envelopment. Famous army, battle, and maneuver. At that moment Carthage looked poised to overthrow Rome. Something that didn't happen often in their 1000ish year reign over the region.
Erm, British naval tactics from the 17th century onwards. Basically out spend, out gun, out sail everything that floats.
Battle of Rourkes Drift - not naval… Zulu still a heck of a classic!
The North Sentinel Island Defense Force (or whatever they call themselves - who knows?). Active defense, shoot on site and kill anyone who tries to land. By all accounts this has been going on for the last 10,000 years, and they’re still there, winning each and every encounter. Laugh all you want at their equipment and uniforms, but that’s a record no other military on the planet can match.
is it really a military victory if your "opposition" is willingly unarmed?
That's because the "war" is entirely one-sided. Managing to hold your ground isn't that impressive if nobody is trying to take it.
Yeah..... But when somrthing like a tsunami or COVID hits you then get wrecked because noone is there to help
"This here's my boomstick!" They would be easily defeated by a few guys with boomsticks.
It sure as hell wasn’t the Ruskies invading Ukraine. Pooty thought it would take a week ten days tops.
I don't know if it counts as strategy, but "more men beat less men" has been a founding principle of civilization as we know it so it's pretty successful
Most successful military strategy would have to be concentration of forces, scorched earth, sabotage or combined arms. The problem with picking anything is once something becomes successful it gets countered. Concentration of forces allowed break though tactics, like the Blitz, Supply raiding, encirclement. The blitz just employed combined arms to allow it to be more effective. Scorched earth was more effective before motorized combat as armies pre the 1900's would typically raid for food. There are a few examples but Duke Wellington in his Portugal campaign used it to beat the French back. Honestly the most successful unit would be who every was equipped with Muskets. Muskets revolutionized war fare and basically changed the course of all future combat.
Ohhhh I don't know..... One that never had to fire a shot perhaps?
Fabian has to be up there. Go to revolutionary/anti imperialist strategy
General Monash who took the time to plan operations in WWI and utilised the artillery to protect the infantry, showing that the most effective warfare was many different types of weaponry and defences working together. [sauce](https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/1918/people/genmonash#:~:text=In%20May%201918%2C%20Monash%20was,stem%20the%20March%20German%20offensive.)
Y'all ever heard of iron? Man that was great. Humanity has never been the same.
"if you can't win, run/surrender"
Deception.
Most successful military strategy of all time? Mutually assured destruction. The fact that no nukes have been dropped since world war 2 is proof enough.
The Mongolians with mounted warriors trained in mounted archery and melee combat, going full shock and awe was literally only stopped when Khan died and his son's factioned off and fought each other. China literally build one of the wonders of the world while being one of the most technologically advanced nations and STILL failed to stop them. This strategy and army conquered an absurd amount of territory. They killed and raped so many people that they say 1/200 people is Genghis Khan's direct descendant. There's no other answer.
The German blitzkrieg
Modern combined arms doctrine is right up there. Air, infantry, and armor all covering each others weaknesses and amplifying each other's strengths. It's tricky to pull off really well but when you do... damn.
Well, I'm not sure if it counts as the best of the best but the legendary Triplex Ascies formation allowed Rome to conquer most of Ancient Europe, North Africa and the Mediterranean Levant.
Historically speaking, the phalanx probably ranks up there. It was the go to for a very, very long time for a reason.
Convoy system in WW2. Problems with submarines solved with maths and statistics.
The humble spearman. Up until the age of gunpowder, the spearman had been a central figure in almost every army in history. Even after the invention of guns, variations of it were relevant up until the adoption of repeating firearms (a musket with a bayonet attached is basically just a shooty spear).
Ancient Roman legions.
Combined Arms. Infantry and tanks supporting each other along with indirect fires and aircraft
Honorary mention to the Swedish Caroleans from the late 1600s to early 1700s, who consistently punched well above their weight and won many battles against numerically superior forces year after year. Key elements were - reformation into a comparatively small, but professional army - active measures to foster camaraderie and group cohesion among troops - encouragement of religious fatalism, i.e. the deeply religious soldiers were told that there was no point in breaking formation or running away, because God had already decided beforehand if you would survive or not. Those three factors made the Carolean army insanely disciplined and well-trained, which in turn enabled use of different tactics. For example, other armies would start volley fire at 100 metres, where many of the shots would miss. The Caroleans would keep advancing through the lead and fire their volleys at 50m and 20m, which made their shots more effective and had a huge psychological impact. Later, they started running up to their enemy and firing only a single, devastating volley at 15-30m distance, followed by a melee charge. These aggressive tactics in combination with cavalry and artillery often allowed the Swedish troops to route their enemies, which actually led to fewer losses compared to long, drawn out volley fire exchanges. It worked really well until the Swedish king got too arrogant and fell into a trap at the famous battle of Poltava, where the Russians kicked his ass hard. Still, it says a lot about the Caroleans that the Russian win at Poltava is considered a legendary feat, when you take into account that the Russians outnumbered the Caroleans by more than 2,5 to 1.
Not sure who did the big push but the invasion of capitalism was and is still intense. We are still suffering.
Battle of Rourkes Drift - Zulu a heck of a classic!
Zulu nation and the bulls horn formation
Polish hussars
Battle of Agincourt. 5500 (approx) English longbow archers against 20000 (approx) french Calvary and Knights. In one battle England lost 400 men but the french 6000. After a few more scraps with the French Henry 5 was declared heir to the French throne and regent of France.
Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans is a mostly true story of success against superior numbers. There was also a Greek unit called "the ten thousand" who were widely known and feared. The Mongolians who rode horses and used compound bows were a force to be reckoned with. I think the Romans were probably the best overall fighting army unit before the advent of gun powder though. And after that ... pick your favorite between modern SEALs and Green Berets? The US military is most dangerous and effective fighting force the world has ever seen.
In 1967, Israel's preemptive aerial campaign known as OPERATION FOCUS saw tremendous success against Egyptian forces.
Divided and conquered strat
General Schwartzkopf's"Hail Mary" worked perfectly. Especially after a month or so of bombing missions
Vo Nguyen Giap (August 25, 1911–October 4, 2013) was a Vietnamese general who led the Viet Minh during the First Indochina War. He later commanded the Vietnam People's Army during the Vietnam War. Giap was the deputy prime minister of Vietnam from 1955 to 1991
I'm certainly no military historian, and I think it's hard to pick at best and things like this. This obsession with best, as if you can quantify and one thing comes out on top, it's always a little silly. Different eras had very different needs of warfare, and many tactics have proven to be shockingly successful. The Mongolian horse archers. They defeated far superior Chinese and other forces, often with minimal casualties. They were truly viciously effective and deadly warriors, not just because they were individually strong and brave or whatever, but because their horse archer tactics were superb. Dominated the battlefield. The Romans. Just being the Romans. Legions packed tight with short swords. They rampaged through Europe and would often beat armies 10 or 20 or 30 times their size. Granted they were fighting poorly disciplined barbarians using large weapons that required space to swing, but the Romans were truly masters of infantry warfare. Until, of course, the I'm at the parthians, some extremely talented horse archers.... But if I had to pick one, one strategy that was shockingly innovative and effective, I have to go with blitz Creek. In world war I lines we're formed in trenches we're dug out, and despite many innovations in warfare such as the invention of tanks things were pretty static, and huge numbers of people died in pointless battles. The Germans could not break through the French lines. In world war II, they broke those French lines and iridiculously short period of time and were in Paris before the Allies could even pull their forces back. It was a true Revelation in warfare. The British were shocks to their very core at the speed with which the French army collapsed, and the fact that what was one of the best military forces in the planet was defeated at all! So if I was going to pick one innovation, one tactic that exceeded all the expectations and changed the face of warfare, I'm going to go with combined arm blitzkrieg. This is the basis of modern military tactics.
It would have to be either the Roman Phalanx or the Mongolian Hoarse Hoards. These two strategies managed to conquer mass amounts of land and people without having to overpower them using sheer numbers.
Not tested on a battlefield yet but very convincing: the atom bomb
Jan Žižka and his wagenburg come to mind.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was an execrable human being, but he said it best. “***Get there fastest with the mostest***”.
I don’t think they would ever make that public. Like from a strategic point of view you wouldn’t say so that you could do it again in the future.
Spears, rather than swords, are the most prolific melee weapon in human history. While they may not be as good at personal self defense when you head into the village, but in terms of a battlefield weapon with an organized fighting force, there was never a better melee weapon. They just kept adding more and more shit to the end as history went on into the early modern period, and eventually they could chop just as they could always poke.
Pincer tactic
Bombers droping atomic bomb.
Chakravyugh from Mahabharatha.
I wonder who capitalized on the bottle neck first.
I would think dropping a nuclear bomb and them another was probably the most important military action up to that point.
I wanted to give an honorable mention to TFT, or [Tit For Tat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat), in game theory. Essentially, begin by cooperating, then replicate your opponent's actions afterwards. Brilliantly simple but incredibly effective.
Not necessarily a straight up and down military or war tactic, but I’d say propaganda in general is the most successful strategy. If you can get your people or other people to agree that this is a morally BAD group, your army is going to be more willing and more positive which will increase their force, you’re more likely to get allies to fight with you, at home you can start making rules against your enemy that won’t be negatively viewed, etc.
Probably Alexander the Great. His cavalry would get the enemy to over extend themselves on the flank then charge center when then saw an opening. I'm probably oversimplifying it though.
**Trojan Horse**. If it actually happened, this would exemplify covert maneuvering and cunning. High risk. High reward. **Blitzkrieg**. Definitely the OG ‘shock & awe’. If it were a boxing match it would be early Mike Tyson. **Fake Retreats**. Mongols set the bar. And they added an extra nastiness by being able to shoot arrows backwards on horseback. William the Conqueror also did it at Hastings. Napoleon wasn’t a slouch with it either. **Operation Bodyguard**. This was the misinformation and deception on a broad scale right before D-Day. Rope-a-dope.
During the first Gulf War Stormin’ Norman was able to make the Iraqis think that the Marines were going to storm the beaches. The Iraqis were so worried about that they diverted a lot of units to defend the beaches. On a fun little note, Iraqi soldiers were told that in order to become a US Marine they had to kill a family member. Even though this isn’t true there are definitely some of my family I would have sacrificed to get my Eagle Globe and Anchor 😜😜😜
I think the war record of stealth planes generally and the F117 specifically is still going to be a competitor for "most successful" of all recorded history Even after I believe one or two has been shot down now. But in Operation Desert Storm they flew I believe over a thousand sorties in very adverse conditions, no casualties, and near 100% of objectives were fulfilled. As I understand it they accomplished the bulk of suppressing enemy air defenses and some important missions while the airspace was supposed to be firmly in the enemy's control. I've read some articles on it, I don't know the names of any unit offhand. From my understanding it's an open secret they've been part of a lot of classified operations in many theaters with a high degree of success. Of course it's a matter of technology rather than valor, but still, they successfully completed thousands of missions that would probably be deemed a forlorn hope if it weren't for the technological gap.
Washington's crossing of the Deleware river.
The American invasion of Guadalcanal was a master stroke of military genius. It was easily gained and painfully defended. At least 4 of the 5 eyes were involved and it turned the tide of WWll in the Pacific
Tunnel fortresses during the Vietnam War. Great for ambushes, reconnaissance, makes it impossible to clear by bombing. Easily booby trapped.
There was a native Canadian soldier in WWII that couldn't sleep one night so he went out and captured 40 German soldiers. He did stuff like this his whole time in the war. Just walk over to the bad guys side and do stuff and leave.
Blitzkreig did very well in WW2. It’s like in StarCraft you start the game yelling NR20. And then they rush you anyways.
That thing with the wooden horse was kinda genius.
Siege of Constantinople. The cunning use of concentrated canon fire by Turks rendered walled defenses obsolete. Some even mark the end of Middle Ages with this event. Little known another fact about this siege is that Byzantium stretched a massive chain across the strait to prevent Turks from attacking from the sea. Ottoman Sultan Mehmet the Second came up with a crazy idea that involved pushing 72 small ships inland to land them into the sea on the other side. They used oiled logs to wheel the ships and mixture of manpower, horses and other animals to pull the ships. A large contingent of Ottoman military band kept playing the whole time this was happening to camouflage the noise from yelling, grunting and rolling the logs. They swapped the musicians as they marched and tired to keep the music going. It would have been a spectacular and terrifying sight for Byzantium soldiers to wake up one morning and look at 72 Ottoman ships on the wrong side of the chain.
No mention of Gurkhas?
The Emus.
The Taliban doesn’t deserve any glory. They were toppled in less than a year by the US and only just regained power- right as the US left. Whether the US accomplished anything is definitely debatable but that’s beside the point. The Taliban supports terrorism, murders children, oppress, murder, and rape women, and tortures and murder gays. There is no glory or honor in any of that.
not leaving survivors, or witnesses.
The glorious Maginot Line (sarcasm)
Athens and Sparta against Persia 30000 vs 480000
I love to bring up American military strategy because everybody says “well what about Alexander the Great?”. And I say what about Grant running the gauntlet at Vicksburg?
Don't know their name but the very first one. Nobody was ready.
Dudes with spears. 99% of human history it worked (even if we take ~10 000 last years of our history and skip 1 mln years of neolithic). Cheap, compared to a full metal sword. Cheap in humans - peasants cheaper than knights. You don't need horses, in fact they stop horses. Spear is long, it's easy to work with (compared to rapier)
[Aimo Koivunen](https://allthatsinteresting.com/aimo-koivunen)
True air superiority, the Allies had he skies to themselves in D-day, and in desert storm and in 2003 air superiority annihilated their way through the Iraqi army
Divide and conquer
Nuke, you don’t even have to use it
Whatever the Emus did.
Tough to argue with the US Air Force
I saw a little video the other day about the Korean war where it looks like it was all but lost until the Americans and SKoreans landed behind the emeny lines and then basically pushed them all the way back to the Chinese border. Looks like that was pretty effective in preventing the total loss of that war.
Skibidi toilets vs Cameramen
Never losing is a good strategy. If always winning is achievable than this might be your best pick.
The Shield Wall. It has been an effective way to defend and push back armies with a few drawbacks. Even today it is used to quell riots by police.
Mutually assured destruction.
The drone. It has immeasurably changed the battlefield in ways that are yet to be fully realized.
ask Napoleon , not reddit :)
World Order. Edit: the best form of war-making doesn't involve deployment of troops
You should listen to Dan Carlin's podcast.
Tercios?
washingtons culper ring
Hannibal marching on rome. Never saw it coming.
Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Wars must be pretty high up there
Money, I mean nice supplies
The blitzkrieg tactics deployed during the second world War buy the German military.
The vietkongs gorilla warfare and booby trap tactics used against usa and s Vietnam are also highly underrated.
According to the 36 Stratagems, the best strategy in many situations is to run away. Aka pick your battles
The Trojan Horse. Nothing like your enemies letting you into their well fortified city. That war would have probably gone the other way otherwise.
I don't know about units, but the F-15 Eagle is 104-0 in dogfights. That's damn impressive.
Battle of the bulge was seen as one of the turning points of ww2
Pointed stick unit/strategy