Asymetrical Warefare in the Ancient World - Page 2

August 28th, 2011  
I would refer you to WAR IN THE SHADOWS (two books), The Guerrilla in History.
It is a history of Guerrilla (Asymmetrical) warfare and has many example from the ancient world.

One example I know of is Judas Maccabaeus (Judah the Hammer) from 167-61 BCE who led the Jews against the Seleucid Empire in Judea.

"Guerrillas never win wars but their adversaries often lose them." Charles W. Thayer
August 28th, 2011  
Originally Posted by muscogeemike
I would refer you to WAR IN THE SHADOWS (two books), The Guerrilla in History.
It is a history of Guerrilla (Asymmetrical) warfare and has many example from the ancient world.

One example I know of is Judas Maccabaeus (Judah the Hammer) from 167-61 BCE who led the Jews against the Seleucid Empire in Judea.

"Guerrillas never win wars but their adversaries often lose them." Charles W. Thayer
Duely noted, thank you for the replies.
August 28th, 2011  
Originally Posted by 42RM
Yes, we have determined that.

This is bollocks. The ancient Vikings used asymmetric strategy. The essential element has nothing to do with the involvement of the total population

Asymmetric warfare encompasses a widescope of theory, experience, conjecture, and definition, the implicit premise is that asymmetric warfare deals with unknowns, with surprise in terms of ends, ways, and means. The more dissimilar the opponent, the more difficult it is to anticipate his actions. If we knew in advance how an opponent planned to exploit our dissimilarities, we could develop specific doctrine to counter his actions.

One way to look at asymmetric warfare is to see it as a classic action-reaction-counteraction cycle. Our enemies study our doctrine and try to counter it. Any competent enemy will do the unexpected, if he believes it will work. When we understand the asymmetry, we counter it, and so forth. Unfortunately, uncertainty is inseparable from the nature of warfare, and asymmetry increases uncertainty. Those who expect doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures to provide solutions and checklists for action are soon disabused of that notion during actual operations. If and when the enemy surprises us with a capability, our response is necessarily ad hoc and less effective. Depending on our preconceptions and ability to adapt, the advantage an opponent enjoys might persist.

Tactics vary constantly with the situation. There is no playbook of tactical solutions; the tactics manual only offers a menu from which to choose. Tactics are employed against an asymmetric opponent in the course of combat, but there can be no set of tactics checklists for asymmetric warfare, since each application is unique. Tactics are whatever we do against an asymmetric opponent when we arrange forces to counter that opponent. What differentiates tactics against an asymmetric opponent is that we might not have ever used that particular combination of options before, or we might have to incorporate new and novel options to counter asymmetry. When confronted by a situation, leaders must choose from a variety of possible solutions and adapt their solution to circumstances at the point of engagement.

Asymmetry is really nothing more than taking the level of uncertainty, or surprise, to a new level that involves novel ways, means, or even ends. From a doctrinal perspective, our response is the same, whether the enemy’s asymmetry is a low-level tactical innovation or a completely novel strategic approach. We must be astute enough to recognize that something has changed and then be flexible enough to create an effective response.

Sufficient skill and cunning are the only attributes that asymmetric warfare/strategy demands and man has been aware of this and used it since the times of Adam and Eve.
1. Yossarian is seeking incidents of asymmetric warfare from the ancient times. My post was totally focused on that with a preliminary comment.

2. Let Yossarian decide if there is anything worthwhile in your post. I can't detect any.
August 28th, 2011  
Originally Posted by PoetSarah
I may be way off base but,

Thank you for sharing.

I can't explain the feelings of confusion, despair?, all the emotions which come with the war as it is. My son is fighting for our freedom (kept).. yet...the enemy has the opinion we are "evil". We all know where that stems from, so I'm battling my own "struggle", if you will, over some of the tactics revealed I've seen posted here ( which I never knew about).
This is something I feel that should not be brought into war yet, it seems there is no escaping it.
It does seem that way to me. I pray that there's no "confusion"..

This is my best way to describe my feeling on this. I hope someone here understands.

"fighting fire with fire" were my first thoughts upon reading the post a few months ago.
In a war against terror, there are excellent reasons not to fight fire with fire. But in the sordid world of counter-terrorism; fighting fire with fire sometimes works when nothing else has.

The British used a similar tactic against the IRA. When the latter had done something particularly outrageous (like the murder of Earl Mountbatten or killing the dependents of British soldiers), something outside of the normal rules would apparently occur to IRA members — all of whom usually relied on Habeas Corpus and rules of evidence as part of their protection.

Killing everyone in an attacking IRA team in an ambush, or even kidnapping a particularly effective sniper and leaving him dead in a ditch, was a way of sending a message about limitations on the form of the conflict. By and large, this tactic appears to have worked — probably because these responses were carefully planned and executed by very professional soldiers. Contrast this to the uncontrolled amateurism of death squads and vigilantes in Latin America. Fighting fire with fire only works under careful and expert management; otherwise the violence can rapidly spiral into a senseless orgy of carnage.
August 28th, 2011  

Topic: Asymetrical Warfare in the Ancient World.

During Alexander the Great's campaign in what is now Afghanistan, his forces waged a savage 5 year counterinsurgency campaign before moving onto the conquest of NW India. The local tribes backed by Bactrian raiders, Sogdians from across the Oxus in Central Asia, Persian military now acting as guerrillas mounted intense hit and run raids against Macedonian outposts including the major Macedonian base at Bagram.
Bagram by the way is the largest NATO base in Afghanistan.
August 31st, 2011  
Fight fire with fire will only work if done with a few set rules.

It has to be surgical, targeting the right men/women and nothing but.
It has to be serious enough to actually send a message.
It has to have a set cut out. (a point where you draw your line, not necessarily known by your enemy)
You should preferably have set safeguards for returning own soldiers carrying such operations out.

RM 42 has given you a few examples from the troubles without giving you a certain operation.
The Russians did the same in Lebanon when tasked to free hostages.
They were utterly successful in arguably one of the most difficult operational enviroments on the planet.

There are more examples of it working, many of wich are kept in the shade.

As for the original question.
In no way shape or form is including an entire populace a prerequisit to conduct assymetrical warfare.
In fact the exact opposite is true in a majority of the cases.
ie: small guerillas with only slight active/passive support by parts of the general population.

KJ sends..
August 31st, 2011  
I agree with the notion that a entire populace may not always be, or partially be behind a guerilla faction. Even in the echelons of history, but sometimes it seems that a smaller, less capable faction does not nessarly have to win,.... it just does not have to lose in order to overcome a larger foe.

Similar Topics
~World Cup 2006
China plans to invade US!
Iraq---The Crossroad Of Destiny
The World 15 Years later: 4 outcomes
Who will help me frist?