What are the most striking examples of strategic or tactical genius when it comes to overcoming the odds and beating a “superior” foe?
The examples you use can come from a variety of different sources.
For example, the military, financial & corporate, sports, love rivalry (famous and well-documented) and political.
The strength of the foe must be stated. If I was to use the military as an example, I would probably go for the Russian invasion of Finland (this is not very useful – but I can’t think of a better one at the moment. Finland didn’t actually win the war, but Russia’s was a pyrrhic victory). Though vastly outnumbered and outgunned, the Finns produced many successes using an intelligent combination of guerrilla tactics and the snow.
You might think tactics in love rivalries an odd one to include. But can you think of any famous examples? Say suitor A is extremely ugly and poor but managed to manoeuvre himself into Princess P’s bed despite the courting of handsome suitor B. That sort of thing.
When considering the “superiority” of the foe, there are a number of things to bear in mind. Greater numbers (of troops), better funding, more advanced technology – remember superiority is not always quantifiable.
Try to include examples where the victories are based solely on the brilliance of the tactics used by the “weaker” participant.
So for example lets say Bill Gates & Microsoft steamrolled Apple Mac. To what extent was this a result of pure luck and how much was due to Billy’s awesome business tactics?
Anyways you getz de ideazzzz.
Indeed, the use of SDMB for homework cribbing is discouraged. That said, I’ll give you a hint: look up the battle of Gaugamela, a prime example. I hope you get a good grade.
One could argue that the vastly technologically superior militaries of the United States of America and other western nations involved in conflicts against islamic opponents are ineffective due to the suicide bombing phenomenon.
Our military tactics, and indeed our entire culture, are largely based on the preconception that nobody wants to die. A single man can choose to stand against the greatest army if he has no fear of the consequences. Although we can introduce physical security measures to lessen the impact of a suicide bombing culture, we as yet have not actual means of addressing the problem directly.
They don’t have to win, they just have to survive and keep chipping away until we declare victory and piss off home. And given that our strategy is to play into their hands every time, ensuring an endless supply of new recruits with our ‘to a hammer every problem is a nail’ approach I’d say they’re probably winning.
I can’t come up with any definition of the word ‘winning’ that encompasses us still bombing the capital city of a country we supposedly occupied a couple of years ago.
Though the disparity was one more of perceived strengths and weaknesses than actual, those perceptions formed the tactical thinking of Tilly’s Imperial army, and delineated his limitations, tactical and psychological.
