Military Power

There are a few things that I do not agree with Napoleon on. One such thing is his idea of fighting on or near bridges when defending a bridge. Napoleon says (paraphrased) that a good general never tries to fight on or near a bridge. He believes that a general should let the enemy get some of their forces across a bridge before attacking. What are your opinions? Let the attacking enemy get forces across the bridge or harass the enemy as they are crossing?

Well, it worked for the Scots, however, I don't know if I agree with the tactic. If you attack them as they are crossing their lines are the narrowest there, but then again, so is your exposed line.

Sure, it's always better to do so, observe the picture:

(White Tree of Gondor)

Imagine the crown is the force that has crossed, the stars are our forces and the roots are the enemy forces waiting on the other bank.

When our force faces the enemy, only half of them will have crossed and will be meeting our guys. This means that when we attack we're gonna have 2:1 ratio (assuming equal strenght of belligerents) and eliminate half his army due to numerical superiority at the place of combat. The other half are crossing and cant help much.

Something to consider....

Take for instance the below, poorly drawn, diagram. Both sides have equal numbers of forces. x is defending the bridge letting y get into the position of being in the choke point, however the match is still even (4 on 4 instead of 30 on 30)

[align=center]xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
|yyyy|
|yyyy|
|yyyy|
|yyyy|
yyyyyyyyyy
yyyy
[/align]

Well, that's the 1:1 ratio of forces.

....xxxxxxxxxx
....xxxXXXXxxx
....xxxXYYXxxx
.xxXXYYYYXXxx
.......|yyyy|
.......|yyyy|
.......|yyyy|
.......|yyyy|
...yyyyyyyyyy
........yyyy

Yea, and this is the forces in combat after Team Y has made it through with some of its troops.
Capital letters show the ones engaged in direct combat.
Having in mind a range equal for both type of troops, it makes sence, this tactic. Outflanking, basically.

Here is what you do... You rig the bridge and when half their force has crossed you blow it up (killing some and splitting the rest of their forces.

I like the way you think Maximus. However, lets say, for the sake of argument, that you either can't blow it up or don't want to blow it up? (I also think different tactics are required for defending than for attacking.)

Goliath wrote:(I also think different tactics are required for defending than for attacking.)

Indeed. If you are attacking you generally wouldn't want to blow it up or let it get blown up (as that would significantly reduce your momentum for your advance). Whereas, if you are defending you may want to do what Max said and slow the advance, kill the enemy, and split the enemy (though, most of the time, if you are defending at a bridge it has strategic importance to you as well and thus you wouldn't want to destroy it either)

Another thing to consider is size of forces, if you are greatly outnumbered you may want to fight them on the bridge to prevent being engulfed, especially if you have the superior weaponry and training (see the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae).

Yet another thing to consider would be types of forces. Not as big a consideration now I suppose, but in the Medieval times it definitely would have. Suppose your army consisted of 100 pikemen, 300 foot soldiers, and 1100 archers where your enemy consisted of 1500 foot soldiers and 500 knights. You would want to fight on the bridge as you would place your pikemen on the bridge with foot soldiers backing them up and your archers on the banks. This configuration first defends your valuable archers from the hand to hand combat they are not designed for and allows them to provide support shooting at the knights and foot soldiers across the bridge thereby allowing you to engage many more than they would be able to.