What separated winners and loosers in greatest conflicts?

Perhaps the folowing short possible answer is not "scientific" -only a viewpoint about what determined the outcome of some of historiys biggest conflicts, cold and hot. Examples: Revoutionary/Napoleonic wars, both world wars and the cold war. It may surprise some how in most of these cases the losers may have had on average at least as good and determined generals, soldiers, military strategies as the winning side, and a rather succesfull "Start". What they all lacked were ressources -manpower as well as economic and natural ressources (perhaps the same was the case in punic wars?).
Perhaps they allso lacked "political/diplomatic" skills - making others enemies in stead of allies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What?
Revolutionary-British should have won, would have without the French intervening.
Napoleonic-One disastrous mistake and a Grande Armee later and the French were a ghost of themselves.
WW1-British came up with the Tank before the Germans.
WW2-Hitler had a stupid attack, opening a second front before finishing off the western front
cold war-USSR couldn't keep up economically or technologically. The end of the cold war may be what brings about the downfall of the US, but that's another set of thoughts.
US civil war-A series of errors by the south early on decided this war. They were outmanned and outgunned from day one. If they had followed up the victory at the first battle of bull run by an assault on washington, dixie might be a national anthem today.

any others?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess in the long run nearly all military leaders may make mistakes, but I admit I am not any expert - rather the opposite in purely military matters.0,
Still it strikes me, that a man like Napoleon is recognized as one of the greatest generals in history and nr.1. in his own era like Hannibal in his era - and even he ultimately lost.
Both won many great and impressive victories, but failed to crush all enemies - and made new enemies in the proces. Once they began to lose they could not afford it, like their enemies, for lack of ressources, especially manpower. In both world wars the "ultimate losers" started out winning territory, battles etcetera, and every historian I know of says they one many occasions had the best strategy, the most experienced soldiers. examples:ww1: german/austrian victory over imperial Russia, which in reality were probably defeated when revolution broke out february/march 1917.Other disaster: Gallipoli. You are right about the british tanks, but perhaps both sides in both wars had their "Wonderweapons"?
w.w.2: A lot of initial great german victories, especially in western Campaign (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Luxembourg), in Northern Africa, in early chapter of Soviet campagn - enourmous soviet casualties. And early japanese victories , especially against chinese and colonial european forces, many before USA entered the war (I think in fact these eastern wars should count more or less as part of the second world war, even if they may not be "officially recognised" as such).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Victory.

Seriously, that's about all they have in common is that one side won.

 

Not really!

Three of my examples, Napoleonic, first and second world wars. Major winners in all three: Britain/British empire(english speaking countries), Russia (you may dispute for WW1, but Russia started on the side that ultimately won).
The losing side in all those wars - and perhaps American Civil war, can be labelled the "challengers". Challengers meaning powers who change or want to change the "established order" (in many cases but perhaps not all "challengers" may be "agressors"). The french under Napoleon wanted to change their own, and more and more the whole european, social and political order. The South in civil war wanted an alternative to Union. The Germans and their side in both world wars wanted I think, to expand in a way their adversaries did not. Perhaps even the Soviets can be seen as "challengers" (perhaps you may find a better english word than me with my very imperfect english).

 

And there can be many examples brought up in which the "challengers" were victorious.
Or did I misunderstand and were you just looking for parallels between those three?

 

The American Colonies were the 'challengers' of the revolutionary war. The communists were the challengers during the Russian revolution. Napoleon and co. were challengers during the French revolution. Cromwell was the challenger in England. If by challenger you mean underdog/aggressor. I'm not sure what you are driving at. You seem to be saying that most wars are eventually lost through attrition and the greater difficulty of the sides to maintain the rate of attrition. If that's the case, then yes, you are right.

 

corpses separated loosers and winners

 

Not necessarily.
There have been winners who lost more soldiers than losers.

 

I am talking metaphorically.

 

What does the metaphor represent?
What does it imply?

 

corpses represent that which no longer serves its purpose

Winners get it and loosers become it

 

I get it, like the greeks vs persia, right? wait...

 

In a way I understand you all and your questioning "What is his point". So here is a sort of answer. First: This is not in any way result of "scientific" research, but some purely personal wondering and opinion (I have studied history but is the opposite of a "name" or "known historian".)
I think there is some striking similarities between at least the 3 examples (Napoleonic Wars. WW1, WW2). That is only 3 of course, but I think they are by far the biggest cionflicts between the year 1800 and now (and indeed all of history in some sense).
And I think the russian revolution(s) are to a very high degree a part of ww1 (and most other communist regimes of ww2) - we should very much doubgt they ever happened without!
And there is more parralels than I mentioned: The "underdogs" in napoleonic and ww2 - and even russian revolution - were not only thwe societies/states, but the maibn personalities: Napoleon Bonaparte, Vladimir Illitj/Lenin, Joseph "Stalin", Adolf Hitler. All of them came from theoutermost periphery: Napoleon from Corsika, a very late part and "non french" part of the french realm. "Lenin" from Siberia, "Stalin" from Georgia(not russian), Hitler from Austria(not Germany). Just an accident? perhaps (even Franco was born in a peripheral town in Galicia, far from central Spain, though he may be not as (in)famous as the others).
Still, my main point was another: how much else than military skills and efforts (and genius if you like)mattered to gain "ultimately victory" in the really great contests (even less, I think, In "cold war", though it was never reaaly tested in the later). The ability to make allies or adversaries mattered very much, I think (more "political/diplomatic" skills than narrowly military).

 

There are three things that decide who wins: diplomacy, resources, and strategy.

Revolutionary War: The Americans got the French, Dutch, and Spanish on their side. Their army was led by a brilliant and charismatic general, Washington, and trained by an experienced and intelligent officer, Steuben. They often used guerilla-like tactics, which threw off the British a bit.

Napoleonic Wars: Napoleon got just about everybody in Europe opposed to him. He made a stupid strategic mistake when he tried to invade Russia, and then lost. When he returned from exile, the countries he had formerly conquered and humiliated had banded together and were ready to fight him, which they did at Waterloo - the British and the Prussians defeated him for the last time.

Civil War: The North was more industrialized, with better transportation, a much larger population, and better organization and training. They clearly held the advantage from the start. The blockade weakened the south, and when Lincoln finally found himself some smart generals, they conducted the war with a winning strategy (Grant and Sherman).

World War I: The Kaiser screwed up the Schlieffen Plan by sending too many troops to Russia and not enough to France, which really cost them the war. German leaders couldn't keep the Italians on their side, and they pulled America into the war, which turned out to be the fatal blow. And the German people were starving to death thanks to the British blockade.

World War II: Hitler invaded Russia at the wrong time, and ended up freezing his soldiers to death. His allies, the Japanese, got America to declare war on them by bombing Pearl Harbor, and Japan simply lost too many battles to the Americans and couldn't keep them from advancing. And of course, there were the atomic bombs.

 

The side that wants it more is always the one that wins. Determination and morale of the troops is the key.

 

:bugeye: what'd you call me?

 

Drum roll please:

"Persistance"

 

Determination and resources.

 

In Naval special forces (Marines, Seals, etc.), they don't look for the biggest, fastest or strongest. They look for the guys who refuse to give up.