So I have studied many battles in my years of being a History student and I have learnt that it is not the size of the army that matters, but it is many other factors that determine a victory or not. Like what can you actually do with the army that you have? How successful has your army been in the past? Does your army have a reputation? The list goes on and on.
Compared to America, Vietnam had a very small army. America had this huge reputation about how it had never lost a war and was always victorious. Yet, Vietnam still won. Size isn't everything and America needed to learn this. Sure America's size had got it through some pretty good times in the past, but this time its size would not get it the victory it needed. Strategy and tactics is what is needed. Vietnam showed that sometimes a full out attack is not always the way to go, sometimes you need to warm up first. Guerilla Warfare got them through the war very successfully. They showed America that even though they had a small army, by use of small short attacks they could get the result that was required. It is not the size of the army, but all about how you use what you have got.
China's 'Ever Victorious Army' is another example of an army was ever victorious even though it encountered armies which where much bigger than it was. Here the battles where won because of training. If an army knows what it is doing and is well equipped it can defeat a less educated army simply. The Ever Victorious Army where very well trained not only in combat but also in strategy and used this to take down even the greatest of foes. This army is a prime example of showing us that it is not the size of the army, but it is all about knowing what you are doing and not just about storming the keep.
During the American Civil War there where plenty occasions where battles where won by smaller forces. The Battle of Chanellorsville is one of these such occasions. The Confederacy force defeated the Union force even though it was fighting an army over double its size! The Confederacy used a number of different tactics throughout the battle from splitting it's troops to using defensive measure mixed with all out assaults. By varying its tactics it was able to successfully win the battle. We can see here that again it is not the size of the army that counts it is how you deliver your attack, by using different tactics and trying different things you will always come out with a better battle!
So from the three examples shown I think it is clear to say that the leader of the bigger army is not always going to be the most successful leader. To be a successful leader you need to work to your advantages. First of all you need to know what you are doing, if you don't know how to have a battle then you are screwed as the outcome is not going to be pretty and you will make a fool of yourself. You need to be able to know not only your tactics, but your opponents tactics, by knowing how each army is going to react you will give yourself a much better outcome than not planning your attack. Know what works for you. If a leader has a specific tactic that guarantees victory, use it, but know when to use it and how often to use it as too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. It is not about how big your army is, it is about the force of the attack and how big of an impact you make. There is no point winning a battle if it is never going to be celebrated in history as being a great battle. Remember there is a difference between a victory and a historical victory.
AND YES if you haven't already realised this blog was all about sex!