• Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s the thing with ancient wisdom. Over thousands of years, it either stands true and turns into common sense, or is replaced with better modern wisdom.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not only that. People used stars and other predictive technics to navigate their lives, warfare included. Methodical collection of the basics made it the ABC of war. Man invented it as the science.

  • Deuces@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    9 months ago

    There are a few nuggets that are still only obvious when you actually think about it. Like don’t fight with a hill behind you because you might need to retreat, do fight with a forest behind you for the same reason.

    • Ugly Bob@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      You can retreat through the forest only if you scouted and secured it.

      Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      Or ‘fight with the sun behind you’ or ‘leave enemy soldiers an obvious escape route’ or ‘be careful with marshy terrain where logistics will become a nightmare’.

  • Ugly Bob@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s funny that this is common sense, but attacking in anger/revenge without a considered plan is still a common staple in history.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hey stealing enemy supplies works great especially when said enemy is too stupid to poison or burn it. Just ask General Sherman, the march to the sea wouldve been a lot harder if Southern leadership was smarter.

        • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Resources are finite, especially during war. They don’t want to poison or burn food that they need to eat. The idea is that you stop the forward march of the enemy before he gets to your food stores. If you can’t stop his advance then you have bigger problems than the enemy looting your food supplies.

  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 months ago

    It still blows my mind that for a large part of human history wars were literally just two giant armies marching towards each other.

    Or that castle sieges were much more boring than made to seem and would last months

    • HenryWong327@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Or that castle sieges were much more boring than made to seem and would last months

      Huh, what media are you talking about? Might just be the generes I enjoy but I’ve never seen anything suggest that castle sieges didn’t last ages. Wouldn’t that kinda go against the point of a siege?

      • greedytacothief@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Maybe it’s got to do with a confusion of language. Not every attack on a fortified structure is a siege. Like the battles at Helm’s Deep or Minas Tirith in Lord of the Rings could be confused with a siege because they are battles around forts and cities. But the intention was to destroy these places, not make the inhabitants surrender.