FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
I personally see this is similiar to why North Korea lose momentum and failed at Pusan Perimeter. The Persian had covered a lot of ground without actually consolidate their gain. The Greece on the other hand, was pushed in a corner, and was fighting a delay action after another delay action. SO in the end, when they have bought enough time and resource and they wait for a bottleneck for a counter strike. and that would general broke the back bone of an invasion enemy.
While you absort your enemy attack using your stragetic depth and while you counter punch when the time is ready, happened over and over again in the history of battle. This war, along with what the Russian did in Stalingrad and what the American did in Korea is a prime example that what would happen when you cover your ground faster than yo ucan resupply it.
Mind you, Xerxes lost bulk of his troop due to stavation on the way back to hellespont.
not to distract the main thrust of discussion.
during my discussions on this topic with friends in US/EU (especially military guys/gals)
i notice that they tend to side with 300 and the Greeks.
However I try to explain to them, that modern day American, NATO (and even Indian) forces have much in common with Xerxes and Persians rather than Greeks,
off course there are multiple reasons that I here.
But still it is kind of an interesting point to mention.
thank you