Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
MonarchistPilot1986

Registered:
Posts: 419
Reply with quote  #1 

I am just curious of your opinion on gurilla warfare. What helped the Americans beat the British is the former fought like cowards. They did not follow the proper rules of war as the British were, and because of this they were able to overtake the well organised British army.

 

While, I do admire some sneaky tactics of great men of the past like Hannibal Barca, I must admit there is a certain grace to seeing soldiers about to fight to their death line up against each other on a field and have some respect for each other, just for the moment.

 

While I understand ambushing and such tactics were a practised, even in the past, there did exist a certain order to things that ordered civilisation had created. Some call war uncivilised, and perhaps it is. But man tried to make it as civilised as he could, and there were certain rules that were practiced by all civilised men.

 

Today this is unseen and because of the times it is impossible. We fight against Islamic terrorists who have no civility and are aptly as Urban II called them "a race completly alien to God". If an army tried to fight like this, they would be quickly defeated.

 

However, do you all admire the old form of warfare in which the general positions his troops and prepares to fight against the other on the battlefield.


__________________
Long live the Russian Empire! God save the Tsar! God save the Tsar! God save the Tsar!
OzLoyalist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 49
Reply with quote  #2 
Yes bring back set piece battles in warfare. The only problem is the power of modern weapons, i think the Genoa convention signed by most countries tries to keep honorable warfare alive in the form of banning the use of poisonous gas and other sneaky weapons. But a new convention must be signed which only allows military technology predating 1800 allowed in certain conflicts. 
__________________
Reactionary Absolute Monarchist

R.A.M

Vive le Roi Vive Louis


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchistPilot1986

I am just curious of your opinion on gurilla warfare. What helped the Americans beat the British is the former fought like cowards. They did not follow the proper rules of war as the British were, and because of this they were able to overtake the well organised British army.

 

 
At the risk of starting a flame war, I would point out that Washington had learned guerrilla warfare as a Lieutentant Colonel of the Virginia Regiment under the British in the French and Indian War. In point of fact, the rebels never "defeated" the King's Army. There was a fully victualled, rested British Army very close to Yorktown when Lord Cornwallis surrendered.
 
What did defeat the British was the great sympathy for the rebel cause of a number of British Commanders (including Cornwallis) for the Masonic ideals for which the rebels were fighting. A good source on this, as much as I hate to admit it, is The Temple and the Lodge, by Baigent and Lincoln, of Holy Blood, Holy Grail fame. Their blasphemous insanity does not get into play here and it makes a good case that the major reason for the rebel "victory" was the Masons putting their oaths to the Lodge above their Oath to their King.
 
(Note: Nothing in this post shall be construed as the author of it taking a position on the British dynastic succession question!)
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #4 
The 'Guerrilla War'  theory also underplays the contributions of  'Von Stueben', and the experience of the Continental Militia's leaders in-general in the King's Service.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.