If so who do you think has the best battle stratagies?
2007-07-22 13:56:26 · 10 answers · asked by leaf 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Wars are not necessary. However that doesn't mean that a nation should not be prepared to fight one if they find themselves in one. It can be necessary to fight in a war, but whoever started it really could have found another way.
The best strategies: Fight to win, hold nothing back. War is by it's very nature bloody and immoral. So win by whatever means are necessary. Then, if your nation is an honorable one, how you treat you opponents after the war will be the way you demonstrate that honor.
2007-07-22 14:02:04 · answer #1 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace.
Wars, are not necessary, but it is the will of men to begin and end the wars.
Sun Tzu has the best battle strategies. Here's a very small list of quotes as to why.
"All warfare is based on deception."
"If you lay siege to a town or city you will exhaust your strength and the populace will turn against you. The population cares not for who is in charge just as long as they are left free to provide for their families."
"In all of history there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
"Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy."
"Do not swallow baits offered by the enemy."
"The slight of men whispering together in small knots or speaking in subdued tones points to disaffection among the rank and file."
"Share the spoils of war evenly with your men as you would share their hardships. You must never play favorites. Anything you do that is not built on balance will eventually topple, causing you great grief."
2007-07-22 15:05:02 · answer #2 · answered by tercentenary98 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Peace in our time." But wars are essential sometimes...
Battle stratagies? For what time period. Things have changed since the time of the Ceasers.
2007-07-22 14:07:49 · answer #3 · answered by Vuk Bronkovic 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends to whom.
The ancient Chinese historians have an interesting take on martial leaders. Although in the west, these tend to be revered as builders of empire, Chinese historians gave more importance to leaders who encouraged growth, development and culture.
Some time ago, I read one of them writing something to the effect that: Although war-like leaders expanded the empire, they did so at the cost of innocent lives and the people suffered much under their rule. For this reason, we may not refer to them as great leaders.
2007-07-22 14:40:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we had to fight WW2 and the War of Independence.
Surprise is the best strategy. Think Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Trenton on Christmas Day.
2007-07-22 14:05:20 · answer #5 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes i belive wars were necessery without WW2 america wouldnt have been rich and our lves would suk right now. My personal fav tattic is the blitzrig makes maixmum carnage with a small amount of troops
2007-07-22 14:00:50 · answer #6 · answered by evandlx 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm still crying for peace brother. It is the only banner I wear when it comes to wars.
2007-07-22 14:01:28 · answer #7 · answered by Armchair Nutritionist 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Total war take no prisoners.
2007-07-22 18:27:43 · answer #8 · answered by Hector 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. They are traditional and made unavoidable by the people who profit from them.
2007-07-22 14:00:33 · answer #9 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
If we didn't fight Hitler, he would have conquered all of Europe and millions MORE people would have died.
Just one example.
2007-07-22 13:59:20 · answer #10 · answered by Tumbling Dice 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋