Belegarth
http://board.belegarth.com/

"Quantity has a quality all its own"
http://board.belegarth.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=17909
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Nix [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  "Quantity has a quality all its own"

"Quantity has a quality all its own" this quote is attributed to Joseph Stalin. Ask Hitler if he was right. So what is the largest unit or realm that ever fought at an event? At Springwar '06, IC fielded a little about 65 fighters-Nix

Author:  Dr. Kazi [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

You can also ask King Darius of Persia about that. He might have a different answer.

Author:  Kyrian [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let's not forget the French at Agincourt and Crecy.

I would argue that, while numerical superiority has its place, numbers don't mean everything. Technology, tactics, training, and leadership can impact success on the battlefield as much or even more than sheer numbers.

Let's take the battle of Agincourt. While numbers vary amongst historical sources, King Henry V was probably outnumbered at least 3:1 perhaps upwards of 6:1. By all rights, his forces should have been completely decimated. However, his decisive use of tactics, terrain, leadership, and combined arms enabled him to defeat a much larger force. Granted, the French made some tactical errors and their knights were headstrong and, at times, undisciplined. Nevertheless, Henry succeeded despite lacking the apparent numbers to do so.

Author:  savetuba [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have see such on our own field of battle where 5-6 spear men can hold back 10-12 regulars. Sure if the regulars rushed only half of them would die but not many are willing to die.

Author:  Mercer [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

I forget who said it, but there's a quote that goes:

Quote:
"An organized force can never be outnumbered by an undisciplined mob."


... or something like that. Examples of this are the 300 Spartans in Kazi's example, or the comparitively-elite US Army forces versus the more-numerous Republican Guard in Desert Storm. Quantity can overwhelm quality, but it has to be properly applied; being outmaneuvered and defeated in detail makes superior numbers pointless, and the average proficiency of a force generally reduces as it gets larger.

30 newbies versus 5 EBF or Numenor Knights might seem to be an edge to the newbies, but I wouldn't bet on it.

As for who's fielded the most players at an event, I would have no idea.

Author:  Matrim [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

In many battles where one side outnumbers the other, the side with more troops is likely to become overconfident and rely less on tactics. The side with less men usualy realise that their best (often only) chance at winning is through using the best stratigies. This combonation evens out battles more, even when numbers are lopsided.

Author:  Faolan [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Take the battle of Boudicca and Paulinus, Paulinus had one and a half legions and Boudicca had seven or eight times that.

The romans won.

Author:  Sir_Mel [ Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't remember the exact location but there was a battle in the second Punic War between the a noob Roman Commander and Hannibal of Carthage. Hannibal had taken a Roman supply outpost that housed many food and munitions (weapons) and was key to Roman success. After many strategic maneuvers of the previous commander the people thought it was time for a head on attack (bad idea). So, Rome mustered the largest number of legions ever, I don't know how many legions it was but it was about 80,000 trained Roman soldiers against a mixed force of Celtic and Spanish swordsman and some African calvary. After some sweet movment on Hannibal's part and some idiot moves by the romans, the Romans barely escaped with 10,000 troops. Needless to say that commander was fired and the next one went on to attack Carthage and defeated Hannibal.

I'm not sure if the numbers are correct right here but I'll have to find book that I read this in (I think it's in my car) and edit the exact ones later.

Author:  Kyrian [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Melannen, I'm not sure but I believe you're referring to the Battle of Cannae:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

Author:  Sir_Mel [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

yeah, I think that's it. That version sounds a little different than the one I read but I can't find the book to verify.

Author:  Nix [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

At Agincourt the odd weren't that long because the English army was a veteran professional army with a unified chain of command fighting the French amy of amatuer knights with anything but a uniformed chain of command The only large professional force in the French host was the Genovese Cross bowman were engaged in a battle of attrition with the English when the impatient second line of Knights rode their only effective missile troop down to get at the enemy.-Nix

Author:  Izareth [ Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Quantity has a quality all its own"

Nix wrote:
"Quantity has a quality all its own" this quote is attributed to Joseph Stalin. Ask Hitler if he was right. So what is the largest unit or realm that ever fought at an event? At Springwar '06, IC fielded a little about 65 fighters-Nix


So is IC a unit or a realm?

Author:  debuenzo [ Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 

this year at ragnarok, the realm area known as "Aratari (basically rome and gestiguiste) fielded probably around 100 fighters...maybe more

Author:  Nix [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

the IC or Iron Crown is an unit that include the formerly independent Clan of the Hydra, the Mordeans, and Uruk-Hai units.-Nix

Author:  vek [ Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

"Quality not Quantity" THe MExican American war. thsi says it all.

Author:  Versago Hayashida [ Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

I would have to disagree as well. I think it was the greeks that proved this point when they held back i think 2000 men with only 300. i cant recall the battle but
Quote:
"An organized force can never be outnumbered by an undisciplined mob."
pretty much says it all. discipline is something that a larger group would probably lack. giving the edge to the smaller group

Author:  Chicken [ Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Versago - you're thinking of Thermophylae. It was actually a few thousand Greeks, not 300, and a few hundred thousand Persians. The Greeks lost eventually, though it was a strategic victory. Most importantly, though, the Greeks were defending a narrow pass with no known bypass (when the Persians got one, the Greeks were slaughtered).

Vek - I don't know much about the Mexican-American war in detail, but from what I do know, the numbers were actually fairly close and some of the biggest problems with the Mexican army was that they were using old crappy guns and had constant money/supply issues.

So, terrain, technology, and logistics all count, but none of that dismisses the point that quanitity matters.

Obviously numerical superiority is not the be all and end all of military tactics, but that's also not to say that a 100-man army is the same as 10 10-man armies. Everyone who fights knows this - why else can three decent fighters working together kill a dozen single opponents in succession?

There are numerous examples throughout history of vastly outnumbered forces coming away with victory, but part of the reason that we've heard of them is that they're rare and famous. Numbers count.

Author:  V-Hil [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Numbers obviously can work against you (looks to the examples of Thermopylae and Cannae), but on a proper open battlefield (where the commander of a large force should be picking his battlefield since he will most likely have to attack), a significantly numerically superior force should win more often than not if they have tactics, teamwork and discipline because of the ability contain, corner and systematically destroy the less numbered force.

Granted, this isn't taking into account the many variables of combat that could turn the tide of battle, but, in theory, disciplined, semi-tactical numbers win more often that not.

Author:  Dacian [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

Mercer wrote:
Quote:
"An organized force can never be outnumbered by an undisciplined mob."




I believe that was Sun Tzu. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Author:  bo1 [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

having had to read that piece, i believe you are correct.

Author:  V-Hil [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Another example in history where quantity beat quality- Russia vs. Germany in WWII. Some of you gusy should be using military campaigns in making your arguments, not specific battles. Use specific battles to back up your argument of "the Persian army was inferior in X when fighting the Greeks. The battles of Y and Z prove this."

Citing one battle to disprove another one can be countered time and time again and doesn't really win a debate or even win over the naysayers.

Author:  Versago Hayashida [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

If you want a war with quantity though just * off the chinese. I bet they could take out any good size army with bambo stick because they would keep coming and the opposing army would run out of ammo lol.

Author:  Big King Jimmy [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

V-Hil wrote:
Numbers obviously can work against you (looks to the examples of Thermopylae and Cannae), but on a proper open battlefield (where the commander of a large force should be picking his battlefield since he will most likely have to attack), a significantly numerically superior force should win more often than not if they have tactics, teamwork and discipline because of the ability contain, corner and systematically destroy the less numbered force.


Isn't that an example of quantity AND quality?

Author:  bo1 [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

no thats an example of Iron Crown, you will see very soon big jimmy
jk i think that would qualify as both.

Author:  Vokor [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

debuenzo wrote:
this year at ragnarok, the realm area known as "Aratari (basically rome and gestiguiste) fielded probably around 100 fighters...maybe more


And they lost every battle this year and i think they were out # the whole time also

Author:  V-Hil [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

"Quantity" can be made up of people who aren't as good as Galin or your average Belegrim, but may work extremely well together. 1 on 1, the "quality" wins. 50 on 50, perhaps they will tie. 100 on 100, the "quantity" might just win because these particular "quantity" types will know how to work together better.

That is a historical reference by the great John Lynne, but also applies to our combat as well and I will use the IC at SW and Arm as a good example of how average joes (with some help from Numenor) used teamwork to win.

Author:  Dr. Kazi [ Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Are we talking about battles or wars here? I think that historicaly, when it comes to individual battles, quantity is simply another factor, to be weighed with training, equipment, terrain, generalship etc. to determine the outcome of the fight.

Now, when it comes to winning a war, I think that massive numerical advantage has more weight than on the scale of a single battle. Yes, the Romans were demolished at Cannae (and the two battles before Cannae) but they won the war against Hannibal because they had a system which let them keep putting massive forces in the field after each battlefield debacle. Similarly the Russians beat the Nazis and the North beat the South. A smaller army might win an engagement due to tactics or terrain, but what are the odds that they will win the next battle, and the next and next, and all the fights it will take to finally wear down the larger foe?

Author:  Killian of Andor [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Have any of you guys seen The 300 Spartans?
It's a movie they made about Thermopylae.

One must bear in mind that Spartan soldiers were trained to fight before they could walk, and their entire society revolved around combat. So you have 300 Spartans, which basically were the equivalent to a bunch of heavily armed SEALs or Delta guys, and around 2 - 3000 regular Athenian soldiers, against Persian conscript soldiers who barely would have stood a chance against the normal greeks, much less the Spartans. The Persian unit that did stand a chance against them were the Immortals, Xerses's personal guard. Would have stood a chance agaist them if they weren't fighting the Spartans in a 50 foot wide pass.

Author:  Kyrian [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:22 am ]
Post subject: 

There's a movie based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, 300, coming out next year:

300

Author:  Vokor [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:40 am ]
Post subject: 

sweet Time to do more PR for the group.

Author:  Olos [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

Vokor wrote:
debuenzo wrote:
this year at ragnarok, the realm area known as "Aratari (basically rome and gestiguiste) fielded probably around 100 fighters...maybe more


And they lost every battle this year and i think they were out # the whole time also


Aratari vs Ohio Vs non-ohio was basically the setup. Aratari was decently larger than either of the other setups, so ohio and non-ohio teamed up and took them out most every time(at least on the last day of fighting)

Except for the one battle where ohio and non-ohio decided to attack each other, and the 6 of us that were there said "**** that" and faced the roman line. Ended in failure, but we held them off for a decent period of time, and I got 2 arrow kills before they mowed us.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/