China's military ideology has long been ahead of the West. As early as the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, Chinese realized the importance of annihilating the enemy's living forces. During the Qin and Han dynasties, advanced tactics such as guerrilla warfare and roundabout raids were widely used. The West has long been confined to rigid battles, from the Macedonian phalanx to the trench warfare of World War I. Most of China's capitals are civil war militarists, except for emperor Wudi of the Han Dynasty Tang Taizong, the other foreign enemies have been beaten into dogs, the Xiongnu Turks Anshi chaos Five Hu Chaos, South and North China, The Western Xia Jin Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Manchu Qing Dynasty, the Eight-Nation Alliance of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, the Battle of The War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and so on.
The "blitzkrieg" that the West has blown out of the flowers, is not the originator of Huo's disease? Huo went to the sick and heavily armored cavalry to drive thousands of miles, large interspersed, big detours, to feed the battle, like a goshawk striking a bird. The so-called magnificent epic war in the West, in the eyes of China, is a village-level weapon fight, Qi Jiguang saw the villagers' weapon fight in Yiwu, often tens of thousands of people, for several months, put in Rome is another epic war! Foreigners shoot the Punic war is also relying on elephant cavalry, although it is capable of almost destroying Rome, but it is no less than any Chinese military expert, according to how you say that Liu Xiu killed thousands of people and defeated hundreds of thousands of people is not the first in the world. Fighting a war cannot only look at the results, but also look at the exquisite process.
Don't blow anything about Hannibal two thousand years ago. Let's talk about modern developed countries such as the United States, Russia, Germany, Britain, France, and Italy. See what their most famous tactics are? Germany's so-called "blitzkrieg" was based on the strategy of the pinnacle of their strategic consciousness. How fast is it compared to Sima Yi's eight-day capture of Meng? Is the so-called "big depth" tactic of the Soviet Union Zhukov comparable to the "giving way to the mainland and occupying two compartments" proposed by Huang Kecheng higashino in the northeast when the enemy is strong and we are weak? In addition to head-to-head encounters, Europeans and Americans have very few whimsical tactics. To use their so-called military experts and China's ratio is to insult China's military experts!
Western military scientists, of course, do not only use brute force, but also use tactics on the battlefield. The Western military experts mentioned in the article are higher than the famous Chinese generals, which is exaggerated. Western countries are stronger than China in modern times and also hold the right to speak. Western scholars inevitably tend to favor Western generals in the study of war envoys. Do you believe that a general who commands no more than 60,000 troops has higher military talent than a general who can command 600,000 troops?
If he knew a little strategy, he would not have detoured into Italy alone. To rescue him, his brother sent another elite Carthaginian force into Europe, where he was wiped out by the Roman army in Spain. These two elite Carthaginian troops were wiped out, sounding the death knell of Carthage's demise. Abney would not have taken this risk with a little strategy. The correct approach was to use Carthaginian navigation techniques to seize control of the Mediterranean seas first. Then attack Rome from the sea. This makes it easier and less risky. Even if it did not attack, blocking Rome's maritime trade weakened Rome's strength.
Which country has a larger number of troops than the Qin Empire, which country has a great talent to compete with the Qin Empire, and which country has a gdp that exceeds the Qin Empire, zheng Guoqu, who wins the government, makes Guanzhong very rich, rides on the same track, builds the highways at that time, captures the Six Kingdoms, attacks while rectifying water conservancy, strengthens infrastructure, and implements the Qin Law. Although the rule of law is strict, but the old Qin people do not have many violations of the law, but the people of the six countries are not adapted at first, if they help Su to succeed to the throne, promote benevolent rule, Zhao Gaolisi did not correct the edicts, Meng Tian did not die, Zhao Tuo did not obey the order, you are now called qin, what you say is called Qin, and some people have said, history cannot be assumed, indeed, but this does not mean that the political theory of Ying is not good, a generation of male lords, young geniuses, and male talents have not made the slightest mistake in the succession of attacking and destroying the six kingdoms, and there is really no emperor in history who can match it.
Western countries have excellent military experts! There are also many excellent Chinese military experts in the East. It cannot be said that European militarists are superior to China's, but it cannot be said that Chinese militarists are superior to European militarists in terms of strategy, and the distance is too far away to be compared at all. We can't talk about the four famous generals, Han Xin and Sun Wuna without moving, but we have to talk about Wei Qing, Huo Zhiyi, Li Guang, Yue Fei and Qi Jiguang. Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, and Napoleon all fought foreign wars, while Han Xin fought within the nation, and no matter how good they fought, they would not be brilliant! In fact, the Roman Empire is really big, you say that the most famous empire in Europe, it is not it! In terms of area and population Fangxi and the Han Empire at that time near bozhong. When it comes to war, there is absolutely no war that does not talk about strategy, and it cannot be said that strategy is not discussed in the case of fighting big and small, and strategy is more important under the condition of equal strength, and whoever has a slightly higher spy will win the battle! Let alone weak against strong, if you win the battle, the whole battle does not have more than seventy percent of the strategic component, this battle can not be fought! Although the editors are not fully in place, they are not unreasonable, this is a civilized platform, and there are mistakes that can be pointed out.
Western military experts should first promote Napoleon, but after Napoleon was exiled in battle, he got the Chinese Sun Tzu's Art of War, and after reading it, he sighed: If you had obtained this book earlier, would there be a reason for defeat? It can be seen that China's war strategy is much more advanced than Europe's. In addition, although China's territory has been divided many times in the end, it has always been able to reunify and expand. Although the West has also had several large empires, it is still a state of small countries in the end. Why? The West lacks great military strategists who dominate the world and great strategists with strategic vision.
What Hannibal and Alexander left behind were classic examples, which were tactical, not strategic. Hannibal defeated two Roman armies led by Roman consuls, but he did not capture Rome because he had no equipment for the siege; he tried to force Rome's allies to defect from Rome, but he did not achieve it. In the end, Rome instead broke up his stronghold of Spain, besieged his hometown of Carthage, and finally forced him to return home. What about Alexander? Macedonia, which does not rely on the sea, has no navy and is not good at naval warfare, so let's fight on land! Attack Greece, North Africa, Persia, India, all the way to India, the subordinates are no longer dry, well, go home, fall off the horse, back to Persia dead warped, people die and the country is scattered, does he have a strategy? Nothing. Only distant battlefields exhaust a short life. These two great strategists touted by the West did not leave anything strategic at all, but they fought happily and died happily! It is not called strategy to flexibly use tactics to defeat the enemy in one or two battles. What is the strategy of the final death of the country? The great strategist who forged the subjugation of the country?!
Europeans do not eat dog meat, not because they are dog lovers, but because dogs are their indispensable hunting dogs, it is difficult to hunt without dogs, and China has long left hunting and entered farming, dogs are only guards, and have no indispensable position in Europe. In the same way, foreign countries do not use strategy, they are not very heroic, please ask hundreds of people to beat each other for half a year what strategy is needed? Times and ten parts around it? There are really so many people, a few thousand people to fight hundreds of people China does not pay attention to strategy, A past is good. Strategy is the need for a large number of people, such as a war of tens of thousands of people, but unfortunately such a war in Europe is too few, even the tactics do not need the war need to use the long-distance and close-range attack on the national exchange such as the rise to the strategic angle of the high-level gadget? Do you see whether the Normandy landings used strategy and tactics, and did the Soviet-German battlefield use strategy and tactics? So in fact, it is very simple, the first is not necessary, the second estimate will not be, after all, China has played for thousands of years before foreigners began to play, otherwise why is Sun Tzu's art of war sought after, to know that no less than Sun Tzu's art of war of the book does not know how many in China, the key to reading the book of war is still called a soldier on paper?
The West is a city-state. How many people are there in a city? Therefore, the scale of the operation cannot be compared with that of our East, especially China. For example, during our Warring States period, the Battle of Changping, just killed more than 600,000 prisoners. This number is far from being achieved by western countries before. As soon as the number of people is large, they are forced to find a way to carry out the war conveniently and quickly. Therefore, strategy is very important. In addition, Chinese civilization pays attention to "people-oriented" and "benevolence-oriented", and plays "soldiers who yield without fighting", minimizing combat casualties and avoiding the destruction of lives. "Plotting" well, war can be "skipped". This is the cleverness of our ancestors.
The reason why China has many strategies lies in the controversy of a hundred schools of thought during the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, and all kinds of ideas are trying to prove the correctness of their theories for governing the country and the world! So that the theory of the art of war in this period gradually matured and affected future generations! And the Western countries have gradually transitioned from city-states to capitalism in modern times! Many historians even question that there was no feudal system in the West at all! Under the city-state system, the industry and commerce between the various city-states are developed, it is difficult to have large-scale wars, and the large-scale wars recorded in the basic historical records are foreign invasions! In this case, the Western countries have not evolved much military strategy at all! Not to mention thirty-six counts!! Then there are restrictions on the development of Western tactics and strategies, and Western agriculture is very underdeveloped, so that many wars in history have been fought for hundreds of years, so what is called war, hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the battlefield is also called war, how powerful tactics can be evolved in this situation?
Since Qin Shi Huang unified China, the unity of language and writing is very critical, and the text also represents the way of thinking to a certain extent, and the unification also promotes the integration of the nation. Then after the split again, because everyone is the same language, ethnic relations are also intertwined, there will be lobbyists in the war, there will be gangs, there are schemes, compared with the European war, the language is still not clear, the ancient strategic choices are obviously not much, can only be pushed flat. That's the way it is.