A war that was evenly matched? (1 Viewer)

[larso]

Most wars have a winner, but some were close run things. I'm wondering which wars might have had opponents who were evenly matched?

 

[Jack]

Most wars have a winner, but some were close run things. I'm wondering which wars might have had opponents who were evenly matched?

Interesting question, but I suppose that even though opponents might begin a war relatively even, there is eventually something which separates them, whether it be generalship, training, political background or even luck. The Western Front in the early part of WW1 might provide an insight into how technologically matched armies can struggle to exploit local advantage. Eventually population size and the strength of industry exerted a significant influence beyond the immediate battlefield. Preparedness to accept casualties might also be vital - Napoleon in Rusia was surprised by the preparedness of his opponents to endure casualties that would have routed other opponents.

So it is difficult to look at a 'decisve' war without there being some quality that allowed one side to win. The US (and allies) in Vietnam fielded a superior force, but other factors were decisive. I know little about ancient and medieval warfare, but I assume there was less of a technological divide, so that might be the place to look. War has traditionally been indecisve in deciding great matters of history, so perhaps its one of those trick questions which has no clear answer.

 

[theBaron]

I'd say the First World War is one, once all combatants had declared war. I think differences between the two blocs, such as manpower, were evened out by technological, strategic and tactical differences.

I'd have to look a little more closely at the wars of the late seventeenth century, of the various coalitions against the French. I think they were relatively evenly matched opponents, but I'd have to do a little more study of them be able to say for sure.


Prost!
Brad

 

[Cornwallis]

You could say that after Valley Forge and from the Battle of Monmouth 1778 onwards, the Continental Army and the British Army in America were relatively evenly matched (apart from the odd battle Camden/Cowpens).

 

[Scott]

Someone remarked regarding war that if you are in a fair fight or evenly matched you aren't doing it right.

 

[Sans Culotte]

I would guess that during the Crimean War, the opposing sides were fairly evenly matched in the "stupid blunders" department.{eek3}

 

[larso]

Finally, some time to spend on my own thread!

I guess one starting point is wars that finish in a draw? But even that's hard, as many of these had second or even third rounds (Punic Wars). Many wars are touch and go, and had periods where picking the winner was a tough job. Wars that went for a while, almost by definition, imply that things were reasonably even. The one that keeps coming to mind for me, is the Iraq/Iran War of the 1980s. That certainly ebbed and flowed (as did the blood) and although Iran had recaptured its land and was advancing, it was halted by Saddam's poison gas. So fairly even in the end?? And a particularly stupid waste of life.....

 

[29 Let's Go]

I think Scott is on the right track. I think wars are started by bullies.

Steve

 

[larso]

Saddam? Check!

 

[Larry Allen]

A very interesting question.:rolleyes2:

IF you look at most of the countries that start a war, they tend to be a nation that is vastly superior to the ones that they are attacking. (at least that is what it appears to me)

** Iraq attacks Kuwait
** Soviets attack Afghanistan
** North Korea attacks South Korea
** Italy attacks Ethiopia
** Germany attacks Poland
** Germany attacks Holland
** Germany attacks Norway
** Germany attacks Russia (Hitler truly believed that the Russian Army was incapable of fighting and he was right, at least for a while. The vastness of Russia and the willingness of the Russians to send millions of troops to die is something that he didn’t count on.
** Japan attacks China
** Japan attacks Korea
** EVEN --- Japan attacks British and American territory [Britain was tied up with Hitler and the US was totally unready for war.] So, my premise holds for the short run.

I don’t know NAP history so I can’t comment on what Napoleon thought or didn’t think.

So, I doubt that any [sane] leader would consider taking on a country that is equal or superior to his countries resources. As been said here, only after a period of time does the balance change when unforeseen events or persons rise to the occasion.
Larry

 

[larso]

It's a bit hard to think of examples of weaker nations attacking a more powerful one. Argentina re the Falklands is a clear recent case but they never thought Britain would fight so far away from home. And if they'd waited a little longer till Britain had no aircraft carriers it probably would've worked out for them. Otherwise.. Carthage and Rome. They were both strong but Rome had more depth and a better system. They were underestimated basically. The weakness of some antagonists is only apparent in hindsight - often to themselves as well.

 

[Currahee Chris]

It's a bit hard to think of examples of weaker nations attacking a more powerful one.

I believe the US has a pretty good history of that happening.

We weren't anywhere close to the muscle of the English at the start of our Revolution. The Indian nations post ACW period fought tooth and nail against many cavalry regiments where, on paper, they would be considered "Weaker"

Even our modern times with 9-11 and the Taliban/AQ- no one saw that one coming.

I really cannot think of too many fights that were evenly matched. Perhaps the ACW might have been at the start?? I dunno, not really my area of knowledge.

 

[Larry Allen]

I believe the US has a pretty good history of that happening.

We weren't anywhere close to the muscle of the English at the start of our Revolution.

Hey Chris;
Hummmm ... I would wonder about that statement. The population of the United States in 1776 was about 2.5 Million to 2.75 Million.

It was estimated (calculated) that 40 to 45 percent of that group were in support of freedom from Britain. Then there were about 25 percent that were neutral and waited to see who was going to win or which side offered them the most. That leaves only 30 - 35 percent loyal to King George and British authority. Of that group many were not the “fighting type”.

I have read that maybe only 25,000 to 30,000 fought for England.

At the beginning of the Revolution, British Troops in the Colonies were about 8,500 – 9,000 but that number swelled as the hostilities began.
Also remember that the Colonist were not just shoppe keepers, farmers, merchantmen, carpenters and such. Many had fought alongside the British during the FIW and were commanders and born leaders.

Also the British had to be shipped over from England, which was a one to two month journey and they were generally out of touch with what was happening on a day-to-day or week-to-week or ever month-to-month basis.

Anyway I could ramble on but I think you see where I am heading.
Larry