|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 16, 2023 17:13:37 GMT
Hello everyone, a while ago I created a group called Tacticians, which basically involved having knowledge of military tactics and strategy.
I went inactive for a while and the group faded away.
Now that I have returned, I am reopening the group to applications!
To get in, you must pass a short quiz.
Anyone is free to apply!
|
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Jun 17, 2023 18:46:25 GMT
Not familiar with the group and don't know if I'm interested or not, but I'd like to try the quiz at least, to see if Sun Tzu and Clausewitz taught me anything)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 19, 2023 17:56:05 GMT
Not familiar with the group and don't know if I'm interested or not, but I'd like to try the quiz at least, to see if Sun Tzu and Clausewitz taught me anything) 1. What Soviet military commander formulated the idea of deep operation in battle? 2. What was the style of infantry warfare developed by generals such as Maurice of Orange and Gustavus Adolphus, later made obsolete by tactics of the Napoleonic wars? 3. What is the Cavalry formation used to drive an impact into enemy lines, using a triangular shape, often being employed by heavy cavalry units? 4. Which French Marshall is credited with managing Spanish guerilla forces in Catalonia during the Peninsular War, using counter-guerilla forced and skilled military administration to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 20, 2023 19:14:42 GMT
I don't think Sun Tzu is going to help... Post answers here? 1. Mikhail Tukhachevsky 2. Line Infantry Warfare 3. Wedge Formation 4. Suchet |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Jun 21, 2023 7:38:19 GMT
I meant that as a question where I should post my answers, but clearly I don't have this depth of historical knowledge  my answers: 1. Tukhachevsky (educated guess, not certain knowledge) 2. Didn't know, obviously familiar with line infantry warfare but didn't know who it originated with 3. I know it as wedge or flying wedge (also Vikings called it "swine array" and it's not exclusively a cavalry formation) 4. I wanted to say Soult, not familiar with Suchet |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 24, 2023 6:36:51 GMT
I meant that as a question where I should post my answers, but clearly I don't have this depth of historical knowledge my answers: 1. Tukhachevsky (educated guess, not certain knowledge) 2. Didn't know, obviously familiar with line infantry warfare but didn't know who it originated with 3. I know it as wedge or flying wedge (also Vikings called it "swine array" and it's not exclusively a cavalry formation) 4. I wanted to say Soult, not familiar with Suchet That’s fair enough, the questions aren’t made to be 100% correctly answered. You can get in if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jun 24, 2023 17:09:52 GMT
Can I ask a debate question? Which commanders had the biggest contrast between their tactical and strategic ability, i.e. who was the best tactician, while being a terrible strategist and vice versa?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jun 24, 2023 18:17:42 GMT
Can I ask a debate question? Which commanders had the biggest contrast between their tactical and strategic ability, i.e. who was the best tactician, while being a terrible strategist and vice versa? Got to be Rommel if you ask me |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 25, 2023 18:45:19 GMT
Hey, Ludwig von Mises , I'd like to suggest something for the test process if that's okay. While naturally it's also important to have general knowledge, most people prefer to specialize in some specific eras and fields after all, so, what about changing some questions based on those fields (like Ancient/Medieval/Roman/Modern tactics) which the applicants would state beforehand, like in the Historical Society group? Of course, it's your call, just wanted to share the idea  In any case, I'd like to take the test again if possible. Like the others who've been a member since the foundation I wasn't required to take the test, but if it's possible I'd like to take it now, both to make it fair for the new members and as a challange. Hope I won't regret this  |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Jun 26, 2023 7:22:19 GMT
Can I ask a debate question? Which commanders had the biggest contrast between their tactical and strategic ability, i.e. who was the best tactician, while being a terrible strategist and vice versa? Lord Cochrane is a great example, an absolute tactical genius, but basically focused on tactics without seeing the bigger picture, which often led to frustration with his superiors. If you haven't read his autobiography you should. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 26, 2023 19:59:05 GMT
Hey, Ludwig von Mises , I'd like to suggest something for the test process if that's okay. While naturally it's also important to have general knowledge, most people prefer to specialize in some specific eras and fields after all, so, what about changing some questions based on those fields (like Ancient/Medieval/Roman/Modern tactics) which the applicants would state beforehand, like in the Historical Society group? Of course, it's your call, just wanted to share the idea In any case, I'd like to take the test again if possible. Like the others who've been a member since the foundation I wasn't required to take the test, but if it's possible I'd like to take it now, both to make it fair for the new members and as a challange. Hope I won't regret this Alright, your idea sounds pretty good and I will think about it. I’ll have your test questions soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 26, 2023 20:01:26 GMT
Can I ask a debate question? Which commanders had the biggest contrast between their tactical and strategic ability, i.e. who was the best tactician, while being a terrible strategist and vice versa? King Pyrrhus was a great tactician but horrible strategist IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Jun 27, 2023 6:36:36 GMT
Can I ask a debate question? Which commanders had the biggest contrast between their tactical and strategic ability, i.e. who was the best tactician, while being a terrible strategist and vice versa? We're neglecting the other side of the question - great strategists who are bad at tactics. Are there any well-known examples? The best I can think of is Fabius Cunctator, and I don't really have any basis for saying that he was bad at tactics, just that he doesn't have any reputation as a tactician. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jun 27, 2023 8:09:17 GMT
Can I ask a debate question? Which commanders had the biggest contrast between their tactical and strategic ability, i.e. who was the best tactician, while being a terrible strategist and vice versa? We're neglecting the other side of the question - great strategists who are bad at tactics. Are there any well-known examples? The best I can think of is Fabius Cunctator, and I don't really have any basis for saying that he was bad at tactics, just that he doesn't have any reputation as a tactician. Yep, I don't think he can be called a bad tactician for being so great a strategist to not fight battles. And this is probably a wider problem in answering the question: poor tacticians who were strategic geniuses could just avoid unfavourable battles. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jun 27, 2023 17:14:32 GMT
Kutuzov comes to mind for bad tactician but good strategist. Whilst he didn't won any major battle against Napoleon, he did drive the large French army out of Russia and persisted on avoiding the French even after they took Moscow.
|
|
my answers:
