any classic battles where divide & conquor was used to defeat a large army?

[Esquire]

thanks i'm googling now but wanted to pck your brain

 

[ThreeLeggedGnome]

Don't know of any classic battle but that strategy works really well when applied to my fiancee's legs.

 

[Esquire]

ok, that didn't help

 

[yobarman]

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome
Don't know of any classic battle but that strategy works really well when applied to my fiancee's legs.

hahahaha

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome
Don't know of any classic battle but that strategy works really well when applied to my fiancee's legs.

LOL

didnt they divide at the battle or marathon???

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Stalingrad 1943-44.

I also want to say the battle of cannae in 216 BC and the capture of a germany army by allied forces within a couple months after d-day.

 

[Windogg]

On land, the Mongols did it all the time.

On water, Admiral Nelson did it at the Battle of Trafalgar.

Windogg

 

[wfbberzerker]

well, if you believe braveheart was an accurate portrayal of history, then it happened at the battle of stirling (not stirling bridge, mind you).

 

[Esquire]

thank you for that info any more

 

[Esquire]

was it used on dday?

 

[Scouzer]

Divide and Conquer = surrounding an army?

 

[Esquire]

no cut them in two, pummel little groups not 1 big one

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Divide and Conquer = surrounding an army?

No. Instead of fighting a 10v10 battle, make it 10v5 and win easily and then do another easy 10v5.

Kinda like having everyone rush one way in CS. 10 guys pummel the 4 that went the same way on the other team and then it's a 10 on 6 the rest of the way out.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I don't know about real battles but in Tribes, we do it all the time when I go to cap a flag...

 

[RossGr]

Find an accournt of Napoleons Battle with the Prussions in 1806 at Jena & Auerstat.

Napleon has the oportunty to defeat a significant portion of Wellingtons Army at Quatra Bra 2 days before Waterloo, unfortunatly his Marchels were afarid of Wellington and therefore did not attack with the vigor nexessory.

Napleon's battles were frequently of the divide and conquer type. He would leave a weak screenfing force to cover a portion of the enemy forces while attacking the rest with a dominate force. Wagram, Liepzieg and Austerlitz could all qualify.

 

[Esquire]

yep nepolean is into it... thank you

 

[PCMarine]

The French in Vietnam @ Dien Bien Phu...except the enemy didn't divide them, the friend divided themselves were soon surrounded and masacred.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Esquire
was it used on dday?

Sort of, though it was more like "Feign and Dilute". The Axis defenders were already divided (spread out all along the coast)...the plan was to prevent them from concentrating a defense in Normandy.

 

[Chaotic42]

The Germans used that a lot in World War 2, but I guess it depends on your definition of "large". They did it to Poland and to France.

They tried to do it to the USSR, but they came up with a defense. They layered their forces and had the line keep falling back while doing scorched earth.

 

[exp]

I think the Battle of Isandhlwana in 1879, between the Zulus and the invading British, could qualify. Here's a brief summary (you can decide for yourself whether it's worth pursuing further): The Zulu army took full advantage of the aggressive and overconfident (arrogant, really) nature of their opponents by using small clusters of troops to provoke the British into dividing their forces. These decoys used their superior mobility and knowledge of the broken terrain to appear and disappear without warning, completely confusing the British commander, who in his eagerness to join with the enemy, gladly mistook the small raiding parties to the south for the entire Zulu army (which was actually to the NE) and rushed after them with half his forces. Naturally the Zulu decoys melted away into the hills after leading the British a full day's march away from their base camp, and the real Zulu army then descended on the remaining British forces at Isandhlwana and completely destroyed them.

I suppose Isandhlwana is not a perfect example of divide and conquer for at least a couple of reasons. First, because the Zulus did not follow the maxim to its natural conclusion by going on to wipe out the second half of the British force (the part that had been lured away). But that was mostly due to cultural, not military, reasons--after any victory Zulu armies always dissolved and the men returned to their villages. And second, because the defending British at Isandhlwana made many more mistakes that contributed to their demise, so it is very possible that the divided troops could have held out anyway if not for those other poor decisions by their leadership.

Still, if you need a secondary example of divide & conquer Isandhlwana should serve since the victory would never have been possible without the successful use of that strategy. And it is also a very interesting and historically significant battle in its own right, being the worst defeat ever suffered by a modern army at the hands of indigenous forces.

 

[hans007]

mergesort. it can divide and conquer any large army of numbers