Mass desertions weaken Iraqi defences

Times of London ^ | 3/19/03 | David Sharrock in Northern Kuwait

[RooRoobird14]

And they sang....

"The cheese stands alone!

The cheese stands alone!

Heigh-ho the dairy-oh

The cheese stands alone!!"

LOLOLOLOL

[johnb838]

No matter how easy taking out the Iraqis turns out to be, our guys need the utmost in skill and concentration to avoid taking out friendlies. Godspeed to them all!

[Joe Hadenuf]

I understand, but in reality, like the UN, without the U.S. there would be nothing, no coalition or war, and today, Sadam would be sitting on his balcony, sipping goat juice, raining down pellets on his people with his double barrel shotgun.....

[KellyAdmirer]

I'll name a few, there are many, many from which to choose. The most famous, that pretty much everyone who has looked at Roman history knows and no doubt you may have heard of, was Octavian advancing on Antony, Antony's troops and allies melting away and ending the wars of the triumvirate. A second was Vitellius' troops deserting upon the approach of Vespasian, as recorded by Tacitus. A third was Caesar advancing in Britain against Cassivellaunus, as recorded in De Bello Gallico by Caesar. A few skirmishes were enough to deprive Cassivellaunus of his allies and make him sue for peace.

As I said, an excellent strategy when you have the goods to back it up.

[johnb838]

The Roman army used to win a lot of battles like this

We Are The New Rome! Hoo-yeah!

[johnb838]

I think the Persians did something similar -- including having mercy on Jerusalem resulting in a little known persi-judeo affinity that lasted until recent times. Zoroastrianism and Judaism apparently are not incompatible.

[johnb838]

Agreed! God Bless Our Troops, and may He Also Save the Surrendering Iraqis!

[ZULU]

The success of this operation does not depend on defeating Saddam. His goose is cooked.

It depends on

a) Minimiziing American casualties

b) Minimizing Iraqi casualties

c) Killing Saddam and his entire cohort of torturing, raping, lunatic assistants - please spare us Saddam as a prisoner.

[jjm2111]

"We Are The New Rome! Hoo-yeah!"

I'm not sure we want that title. Rome gave up it's Republic for an Empire. Imperial Rome's economy (largely)depended on the expansion of it's empire and the plunder of captured territories. This combined with a horrifically twisted culture led to the downfall of civilization in much of Europe and the Dark Ages.

[MainFrame65]

They started way back then, eh?

[katana]

Sun Tzu the Art of War III.2:

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

[KellyAdmirer]

Rome had its problems, but its economy had a lot more going for it than plunder and expansion of territory. One can argue rather convincingly, I think, that mass migrations and demographic pressures did the Western Romans in. Easy to forget that the Eastern Roman Empire, without much plunder and without territorial expansion, lasted for a thousand years after Rome itself was lost to invading forces.

[JasonC]

The problem I have with your examples is that the premise was the reputation of the Roman army led to such fear that the enemy capitulated without battle. But in two of your cases, both armies were Roman. Which was supposed to fear the reputation of the other?

Obviously, these were matters of internal political calculation in civil wars, with men on either side trying to anticipate the ultimate victor and avoid crossing him. Not fear of Roman military prowess, which was present on both sides.

As for the example from Britain, it was not a success without fighting. It was simply defeating a loose coalition by fighting its sub-elments piecemeal, coercing armies by threatening the countryside their members sought to protect, and the like. Weaker enemies capitulated after scattered defeats and deprediations because they could not halt those depredations except by submission, yes. But that is not the same as submitting rather than facing battle, because battle was too terrifying.

The reality is it was simply relatively easy to avoid battle in those days, if the local terms seemed unfavorable. I can think of a few cases out of Livy where armies "passed under the yoke" in submission, but after defeats or because they were cut off in impossible military situations. Not because of any generalized fear of Roman military reputation.

[doug from upland]

Maybe we could tell them war has started so they can defect. Perhaps we can save all the missiles for Iran or North Korea. (or Berkeley)

[Judith Anne]

I like that quote from Sun Tzu.

Hub said this morning that it might be interesting to delay the start of the main assault until tomorrow morning, to further fray the nerves of Hussein and the Iraqis and enable the army to desert overnight...

[JasonC]

It certainly was not a Roman adage. They fought very bloody pitched battles as a matter of course. Lost not a few of them, too, with appalling loss of life. They killed millions in the course of their wars, in battle and in destruction of resisting countryside, occasionally in wholesale executions of captives (though most were sold into slavery). Avoidance of human cost in war was the last thing on their minds.

[katana]

Sun Tzu was a general in the service of Ho Lu, King of the State of Wu in ancient China. His book, The Art of War is required reading in all the military academies and many major corporations. I suspect I wasn't the intended recipient of your message concerning Roman generalship.

[HardStarboard]

>>>Since when is it common practice to fly flags on tanks when heading into a battlezone?<<

I remember seeing footage of Sherman tanks in WWII heading into battle with unit flags attached to their antenna. Occasionally you would see an American flag - but everyone pretty much knew, if it was a Sherman, it was American.

[HardStarboard]

>>>73% eh? Not 74 or 72?... ;)<<<

The average is 50% of the difference upper and lower bounds of the set if all other numbers in the set are evenly distributed about the mean. Otherwise its different.

[KellyAdmirer]

One can argue these points endlessly, to little effect. I will point out that Antony was relying largely on Egyptian troops of Cleopatra that knew they were no match for first-rate Roman troops, and deserted, leaving his Roman forces so badly outnumbered that they, too, took flight. The proof that Octavian had the true Roman resources at his disposal, and not Antony, had been convincingly demonstrated at Actium and gave Octavian the aura of Roman invincibility.

As for the British example, of course it was a "loose coalition" - the lack of central cohesion is precisely why the foreign armies were so weak, and the internal political cohesion the reason they were so scary.

The Vitellius example is interesting in that the troops under him realized that, despite their own proficiency having been trained in Roman arms, they knew that they had no chance because they faced well-led quality Roman troops. If they had faced Gauls or others they considered barbarians, they no doubt would have made the effort despite Vitellius's own leadership problems. Instead, hearing reports that the Roman armies opposing them were being reinforced, they deserted.

Bottom line in all three examples: no reason to risk one's life in an obviously losing cause when facing clearly superior Roman arms. Eh, Iraqis?