Sun Tzu would have disagreed with this assessment. In 'The Art of War', Sun Tzu places emphasis on a separation between military strategy and governing politics. But that thesis also states that the general is ultimately responsible for military success and that he should even disregard political sovereignty in a bid to secure the victory that policy demands. In that sense Darth Vader is still ultimately responsible despite Emperor Palpatine's political doctrine.

This makes me miss Rebellion so much....

Why oh why did I sell my copy????

WouldYouKindly:
... Finally, never surround your enemy. Give them an avenue of escape and they will take it. Once they lose cohesion, run them down...

I know it's a bit late for this discussion now, but not necessarily - surrounding an enemy has a TON of strategic merit. I present as an example Hannibal defeating a much larger force of Romans at Cannae:

This is my favorite episode of this series (with Marathon being a close second), which uses Rome: Total War to illustrate the battles, and is hosted/narrated by the guy who played CPT Spiers in the Band of Brothers TV series.

Nghtgnt:

WouldYouKindly:
... Finally, never surround your enemy. Give them an avenue of escape and they will take it. Once they lose cohesion, run them down...

I know it's a bit late for this discussion now, but not necessarily - surrounding an enemy has a TON of strategic merit. I present as an example Hannibal defeating a much larger force of Romans at Cannae:

This is my favorite episode of this series (with Marathon being a close second), which uses Rome: Total War to illustrate the battles, and is hosted/narrated by the guy who played CPT Spiers in the Band of Brothers TV series.

There's always an exception to the rule. Counting on Roman legions running is never a great idea, after all.

WouldYouKindly:
... Finally, never surround your enemy. Give them an avenue of escape and they will take it. Once they lose cohesion, run them down...

I dunno... Surrounding the enemy went pretty well for the Red Army in Stalingrad.(And correspondingly badly for the German 6th army.)

LtWigglesworth:

WouldYouKindly:
... Finally, never surround your enemy. Give them an avenue of escape and they will take it. Once they lose cohesion, run them down...

I dunno... Surrounding the enemy went pretty well for the Red Army in Stalingrad.(And correspondingly badly for the German 6th army.)

Strategic advantage because your enemy can't get supplied. Tactical disadvantage. Decreases enemy morale but makes them desperate. Desperate men can fight above and beyond what is normally possible. You never want to make them think there's no hope of survival. Some might break down, but others will fight to the death. Case in point, Yakov Pavlov spent the better part of the initial stages of Stalingrad completely surrounded, starting with a mere 4 men and eventually ending up with a paltry 25. They had no escape, they weren't allowed to retreat. They killed hundreds of Germans.

WouldYouKindly:

LtWigglesworth:

WouldYouKindly:
... Finally, never surround your enemy. Give them an avenue of escape and they will take it. Once they lose cohesion, run them down...

I dunno... Surrounding the enemy went pretty well for the Red Army in Stalingrad.(And correspondingly badly for the German 6th army.)

Strategic advantage because your enemy can't get supplied. Tactical disadvantage. Decreases enemy morale but makes them desperate. Desperate men can fight above and beyond what is normally possible. You never want to make them think there's no hope of survival. Some might break down, but others will fight to the death. Case in point, Yakov Pavlov spent the better part of the initial stages of Stalingrad completely surrounded, starting with a mere 4 men and eventually ending up with a paltry 25. They had no escape, they weren't allowed to retreat. They killed hundreds of Germans.

And I'd say that gaining a decisive strategic advantage is better than a nebulous tactical advantage. For every man who fights to the death because he's desperate there are another two or three who wont. Because they have no ammo, are starving, or are so infested with lice and disease that they just give up.

Plus, by giving an escape route there is always the chance that the retreating force escapes and is still combat effective.

LtWigglesworth:

WouldYouKindly:

LtWigglesworth:

I dunno... Surrounding the enemy went pretty well for the Red Army in Stalingrad.(And correspondingly badly for the German 6th army.)

Strategic advantage because your enemy can't get supplied. Tactical disadvantage. Decreases enemy morale but makes them desperate. Desperate men can fight above and beyond what is normally possible. You never want to make them think there's no hope of survival. Some might break down, but others will fight to the death. Case in point, Yakov Pavlov spent the better part of the initial stages of Stalingrad completely surrounded, starting with a mere 4 men and eventually ending up with a paltry 25. They had no escape, they weren't allowed to retreat. They killed hundreds of Germans.

And I'd say that gaining a decisive strategic advantage is better than a nebulous tactical advantage. For every man who fights to the death because he's desperate there are another two or three who wont. Because they have no ammo, are starving, or are so infested with lice and disease that they just give up.

Plus, by giving an escape route there is always the chance that the retreating force escapes and is still combat effective.

I typically talk tactics, it's what I know better. Tactics are also usually a short term, single encounter kind of thing. While a unit that is allowed to retreat may be combat effective, a unit that is continually pursued or falls into another pincer attack to cut the retreating unit in half is not. I never said let them retreat, I said give them the opportunity to run, but don't let them actually escape, just get them to lose a little bit of cohesion and you can bring down a tough enemy with less losses. There's a strategic example I know of, when the Iraqi Army was retreating during Desert Storm we turned their escape route into a road of death. Granted, they probably would have been obliterated either way, but almost no losses were taken after they decided to retreat. It requires a bit of planing beforehand, but the rewards can be pretty big.

WouldYouKindly:

LtWigglesworth:

WouldYouKindly:

Strategic advantage because your enemy can't get supplied. Tactical disadvantage. Decreases enemy morale but makes them desperate. Desperate men can fight above and beyond what is normally possible. You never want to make them think there's no hope of survival. Some might break down, but others will fight to the death. Case in point, Yakov Pavlov spent the better part of the initial stages of Stalingrad completely surrounded, starting with a mere 4 men and eventually ending up with a paltry 25. They had no escape, they weren't allowed to retreat. They killed hundreds of Germans.

And I'd say that gaining a decisive strategic advantage is better than a nebulous tactical advantage. For every man who fights to the death because he's desperate there are another two or three who wont. Because they have no ammo, are starving, or are so infested with lice and disease that they just give up.

Plus, by giving an escape route there is always the chance that the retreating force escapes and is still combat effective.

I typically talk tactics, it's what I know better. Tactics are also usually a short term, single encounter kind of thing. While a unit that is allowed to retreat may be combat effective, a unit that is continually pursued or falls into another pincer attack to cut the retreating unit in half is not. I never said let them retreat, I said give them the opportunity to run, but don't let them actually escape, just get them to lose a little bit of cohesion and you can bring down a tough enemy with less losses. There's a strategic example I know of, when the Iraqi Army was retreating during Desert Storm we turned their escape route into a road of death. Granted, they probably would have been obliterated either way, but almost no losses were taken after they decided to retreat. It requires a bit of planing beforehand, but the rewards can be pretty big.

Causing a loss of cohesion by inducing a rout, while destroying or encircling the enemy on a large scale is a fair idea.

On the topic of the Iraqi army, their complete destruction is probably less due to the strategic decision to hit them while retreating, and more a result of the fact that the Iraqi army was completely outclassed in terms of equipment, was utterly incompetent and was facing an enemy with complete freedom in the air.