On Jun 19, 2011, at 11:15 AM, raghu wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Jun 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, raghu wrote: >>> This is a new and intriguing take on the history of warfare, but >>> somehow does not seem completely plausible. Anyone more >>> knowledgeable >>> on the subject care to comment? >> Hannibal won overwhelming victories in pitched battles at Traseminae >> and Cannae. >> A lot of good it did him...or Carthage! >> And then, of course, there was Pyrrhus of Epirus... > It was the example of Pyrrhus that bothered me too, because it is in > direct contradiction to Whitman's thesis. However we cannot write off > his thesis if such counter-examples are rare and exceptional.
Pyrrhus became eponymic because he was neither rare nor exceptional. Hannibal, whose victories were truly crushing, is the real case in point. And then there was Napoleon, who won his victory at Borodino, captured Moscow, and in the process lost everything (if he had *lost* he would have had to retreat and his army and empire would have easily survived). A long, long, time ago I read a book (by Creasy and Murray) called "Decisive Battles of the World," foremost examples being Créchy and Agincourt from the utterly futile "Hundred Years War!" Whitman is no Sun-Tzu. Shane Mage "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
