Just to be clear, when I said, "technology" I was also including discoveries in tactics; Napoleon, to give the classic example, didn't have any weapon drastically different from his predecessors, but he formed his columns in a new way. I consider that an advance in technology. On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 10:40, Jeff G. wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Brust" <skzb at dreamcafe.com> > To: "Jot Powers" <books at bofh.com> > Cc: <dragaera at dragaera.info> > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 6:21 AM > Subject: Re: Defender always wins? (Was: Re: on contradictions and such) > > > > > > > In war, the advantage/disadvantage of the attack in a given battle > > depends on technology. The Napoleonic formation mave all the advantage > > to the attacker. Then the minnieball and associated technology gave it > > back to the defender. &tc. > > > To a point. The problem with quantifying combat is that there are too many > variables. Yes, technology can be a factor, the British army stampeding > through India and Africa are an example of this. But the determination of an > enemy and his willingness to sacrifice troops is a factor as well, that can > sometimes overwhelm a technological advantage, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan > (vs. anyone but the US). Discipline as well can be decisive, but that can be > overcome by superior tactics (the US Revolutionary War). The will to win is > perhaps the most decisive thing, but impossible to measure until tested in > battle. > > In my personal experience, the three tactics I find most effective: a swift > feint to draw your opponent out, all out attack to overwhelm him quickly, > and third, shoot him before he comes into striking distance. > > Jeff G. >