>defense is more difficult than offense
what did he mean by this?
>>70932794
With defense (especially of a village) you're tied to one location, you have very little mobility.
>>70933829
Seems to be the opposite in the west, with castles and such.
>>70932794
You have to react, not act.
>>70932794
in order to attack all you have to know is how to kick or punch, for example. in order to defend you must know how to kick and punch in the first place, but then also then know how to block a kick and a punch
>>70932794
In offense, if one of 25 attacks succeed, that is success
In defense, if one of 25 attacks succeed, that is defeat.
pre-cannons sieges always favor the defender though
>>70932794
What would you rather? Me telling you "I'm going to stand still, hit me all you like" or me telling you "you're gonna stand still and I'm going to punch you all I want"?
>>70932794
I thought he explained it in the movie. To defend, you have to predict every point someone will attack from, and plan for it. To attack, all you need to do is fine one weak point and exploit it. Am I giving a sincere answer to a troll post right now?
>>70935533
>>70933882
>le impenetrable wall memes
Defending, usually, you're more vulnerable, you don't know who is attacking you, with what, how many, how they will attack, all you can do is try to hold out as long as you can
Attacking, You can study a stronghold's weaknesses, Use tactics the enemy might not be aware of, You have an advantage usually
>What is the object of defence? To preserve. To preserve is easier than to acquire; from which follows at once that the means on both sides being supposed equal, the defensive is easier than the offensive.
>t. Carl von Clausewitz
So is this not true all of a sudden or what
>>70935721
your post depends entirely on clauswitz being not a fucking retard
>>70932794
Why didn't the bandits just torch the huts with burning arrows from afar?
>>70935606
smart man
>>70935721
>both sides being equal
In the case of OP, the sides are not equal. The samurai need to defend a whole village. The bandits just need to kill people and take their food. Their objectives are entirely different, so your quote does not apply.
>>70935606
what if the defenders have the high ground?
>>70935849
Also each samurai was worth 10 bandits, more or less.
>>70935797
Because then there would nothing be left to loot as everything would burn to the ground, you tard.
>>70935721
>to preserve is easier than to acquire
No. It's not. Destruction is much easier than preservation. This is a meme opinion.
>>70935606
>Defending, usually, you're more vulnerable,
behind walls?
>you don't know who is attacking you, how many
you have a better idea than the enemy, because your army is higher, and behind walls
>>70935721
Preserving isn't easier than acquiring, it's impossible. Everything is subject to the inexorable march of time and decay, you can ultimately preserve nothing. Acquiring, on the other hand, can actually be done. All you need to do is snatch an object from the stream of decay while it is yet whole
>>70935849
was he referring to the specific situation though or was he giving out a bit of universal wisdom
>>70935721
>on both sides being supposed equal
>one side in seven ronin and peasants
>on other armed bandits
Those sides are not equal
>>70935988
>Ottomeme roachpire
>>70936038
it's not universal wisdom because it's bullshit and clearly wrong
>>70936041
If the peasants were attacking the bandits they would be at a higher disadvantage than if they were defending
>>70935988
>hurr, one time one thing happened once so hurr durr castles xd
because you have the initiative being the attacker , the defender can only react to the attacker's plan
>>70936094
but it's wrong, ronins mounted counter-attack on bandits with huge success with only 4 of them
Would you rather punch someone or be punched by someone?
>>70932794
Probably that no matter how much effort you put in, all you need is to display one weakness for them to exploit.
Fairly certain Sun Tzu would disagree. With strong defenses you didn't need to attack, but for a strong attack you needed both strong defense and strong offense.
>>70936120
it's not about fist fighting, it's people guarding an entrance
>>70936190
Sun Tzu is a fucking meme. His "art of war" is the stupidest shit
>>70936109
Counter atatck is not a normal attack defense situation. If they attacked the bandit hideout/camp they'd be fucked
>>70936232
>Sun Tzu is dumb! Clausewitz is a meme! None of the most influential names in warfare know anything. Listen to me instead!
well let me tell you fags
i've played a lot of RTS's in my time and defense was always easier than offense
you could just sit and your'e base and kill behind your walls
>>70936232
>T. keyboard warrior neet
>>70936285
>If they attacked the bandit hideout/camp they'd be fucked
you forgot when they burned their buildings with several bandits inside?
Defense is fucking hard, bandits were not prepared for it and got crushed. Ronin mounted exceptional defense compare to bandits human-wave tactic and that's why they won
>>70936335
>Sun Tsu who wrote a fletching manual a thousand years ago knew anything about fighting, much less war
>Claubshits who has to metamorph defense into something nebulus like "preserving" without explaining how such things can be, in order for him to say attacking is easier
Stay retarded, Mr I Read 2 War Books and think I know how WAR WORKS man
>>70936431
That was a surprise hit and run attack, not an attack with a goal beyond doing as much damage to soften up the upcoming attack. I'm taking full on assault like the bandits were planning on doing to the village.
>>70936470
Look at any siege in history and you'll see the attackers usually outnumber defenders by 2:1. If fortifications were no use, people wouldn't bother building them, they'd just sally forth every time.
>but muh metaphor of punching or it being easier to destroy than build!
that's nice, but look at reality.
>>70936339
as a rule of a thumb, you must have at least 4.5 x the size army( He says up to 15x and still you are not 100%) if you are on offensive
if we are strictly speaking about cold warfare there has to be at least 2 attackers per 1 defender( 2.5 out of 4 will be able to come alive and do some fighting,0.5 will be wounded or somehow incapacitated to do some real fighting but they will be able to participate ).
Now, if its human wave tactic, well that should go up to at least 10 on 1.
True, defenders chose type of game, place of game(and if they are really defending their country(their cause is just), morale is not an problem), but on the other hand they don't have anywhere to run too and since they used some really mean and vicious traps and tactics to stop bigger advancing army, they are gonna be tortured really, really bad if they lose.
>>70936575
well yes, because they had NO soldiers beside ronin. Peasants were far from fighting forces so yes if they were attacking bandits head on they would lose, doesn't make defending non-fortified position easier than attacking
>>70935940
They could eat the villagers.
>>70936611
so you're equating walls being effective with defense being easier. tell me, how long does it take to build a castle? how much math and geometry do the masons need to know to construct sturdy walls? how many TONNES of stone? how much man power and man hours?
now compare how long it takes to walk up to a town
ah, right. because building the walls, you know, ERECTING the actual defenses, doesn't factor into your little scheme just the battles. and even then attacking the walls is easier than defending them after all is said and done
nice memes
Assuming both sides equal, defense wins if they have advanced knowledge that an offense is coming. If proper defense is set up, it becomes a battle of resources which defense have a upper hand due to preservation.
This is true, Attack and Defense on Overwatch is heavily in favor of attack. what a smart guy
>>70935568
basically, what he wanted to say is:" Im really experienced in attacking , ill use that experience to predict where they shall try to breach."
>>70932794
>Amerifatz can't into basic philosophy
Well, fat fuck, you can't apply the same thing to your disgusting eating habits;
It's much easier for you to attack food (as in gobble up everything in sight, even small children and household pets), than defend against it (you know, NOT eating more than 50,0000 calories a day, you disgusting FUCK)
Lol, and you wonder why people in Canada hate you
>>70932794
Defence can't win if it has no supply lines, they can't just get up and pillage elsewhere like the Offense can.
>>70936697
If they'd fare better defending than attacking with no change in resources then that means defending is easier.
>>70936232
Dawg, just because you can win a game of Total War on medium difficulty doesn't mean you can talk shit about guys who've been quoted by successful leaders of armies that number in the hundreds of thousands.
>>70936711
>walls take a long time to build!
ok... never said otherwise.
>and even then attacking the walls is easier than defending them after all is said and done
not if you look at actual sieges.
>>70936905
I wasn't aware number of times quoted equaled military prowess. you'd think battle successes and his WRITINGS would be the benchmark.
oh no, but someone quoted him it doesn't matter his book is shit and he loses fights
>>70936737
wrong, because Defense does not have logistics to bring new stuff(if you strickly speaking about food)
attack their water supply, food supply and just wait, let nature do its
>>70936973
Well uh, his writings are what's been quoted by successful commanders, so they are the benchmark.
>he loses fights
What? Who're you talking about?
>>70936944
so which is easier, spending years learning geometry and mathematics to erect stable walls then spending years erecting a castle
or walking up to a town with an amount of soldiers?
you've already conceded by ignoring my post and saying "hurr, just look at ottoman blunders on wikipedia" but I just thought I'd do one last victory lap around your dumb ass
>>70937040
>his writings are shit
ignored that part, did ya? quote him all you want, you're quoting a fucktard
>hurr but when I read it I just felt like he was super smart because people said he was and and... and all those times he was quoted... so I never bothered to actually digest what he wrote to find how much bullshit is in there
>>70936973
>Guy was literally a general who's saw some shit irl on the frontlines
>Other generals and military leaders through history have literally used his strategies in real fucking frontline shit
Yet
Some turbo autismo shitposter from 4chan that the only shit he has seen irl is the skidmarks in his boxers thinks he knows better....
>>70937080
What? Obviously I've read and to some degree digested it. I'm not a military commander, so of course I can't tell its worth as well as an actual military commander. I found it good, and so have many successful commanders. What's so stupid about it, anyway?
>>70937041
>so which is easier, spending years learning geometry and mathematics to erect stable walls then spending years erecting a castle
is that what the peasants had to do in the movie?
romans built simple fortification often before a battle, trenches, spikes. You don't need to build a new castle at the start of every battle like a RTS game.
Show me one siege where the defenders outnumbered the attackers, and lost.
The best tacticians disagree with you.
Historical records disagree with you.
You're objectively wrong.
>>70936839
On the other hand with their wast numbers ronins could encircle bandit camp and and thus turning tables around
>>70937041
how hard do you think it would be to erect a new wall when theyve had architects and have done it a thousand times over
if it was so ineffective, and so time consuming, surely they would have come up with a better way to defend themselves, right?
>>70937166
>I'm not a military commander
clearly. you believe memes because you heard them and can't think for yourself. that's about it
>>70937134
>never read his book to know how bullshit it is
nice meme frog
>>70937041
Ok well you need at least 2x more people to attack so you'd have to have a bunch of babies, half of them would be women so useless, there would be some with deformities and diseases, and the. You'd have to successfully raise them to fighting age then train and supply them in order to even start the attack. Seems a lot harder than finding a couple rocks and dudes that know geometry.
YES YES DEFENSE IS MORE DIFFICULT THAN OFFENSE
HOWEVER
>>70937245
wasn't expecting to see this here, you made me laugh anon
>>70937185
building trenches and spikes =/= defense is easier
you're all over the place and you can't even defend the points of your argument. proof once again that attacking is easier than defending, otherwise you wouldn't look like such a fool trying to do it
>>70937245
GET THIS FUCKING MEME OFF MY BOARD ALREADY
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>70937232
that same number of men you had to raise would have to carry stones for years ontop of "some guys who know geometry"
nice try, your own logic doesn't even make the point you're trying to
>>70937245
Okay, first good use of that meme.
>this thread
>>70937229
Look man, nobody's gonna care for what you have to say unless you start giving examples of what's so stupid in the book.
>>70937291
>couldn't even give one example
Embarrassing. Leave the thread now, you'll forget this soon.
>>70937329
Birthing, raising, training, and equipping in twice as many people is more resource and time intensive than moving rocks on too of each other.
>>70937398
the whole thing isn't worth a hot shit
pick a fucking page. it's garbage
>have twice/thrice less troops while sieging
>win
>>70937437
Weak, dawg. 1/10 is the best I can give you.
>>70937329
>that same number of men
It would be at worst half the number of the attackers.
>>70937291
Attacking a castle is motherfucking hard with pre-cannon equipment.
Defending literally means "sit tight and shoot the defenseless fucks under your walls"
>>70937406
an example of what? I already schooled you, you've just been in maximum damage control these past 2 posts and trying to move the goal posts because you know your position is... INDEFENSABLE
>>70937435
it just isn't. nice meme
>>70937245
HERE WE GO
>>70937467
you're unfamiliarity with wall and castle construction is glaring. you are done talking about this
>>70937477
your complete lack of military knowledge is apparent with this one post. you're done with this topic
>>70937456
>dubious
>citation needed
>citation needed
>citation needed
You sure know how to pick em.
>>70937456
>Romans versus literally whos
Gee I fucking wonder what
>>70937483
>Moving a heavy rock is harder than creating and maintaining life for a decade and a half to two decades
Oooook
>>70937483
>an example of what?
Is english your first language? Or are you a little bit autistic? You can't follow the simplest conversation.
>>70937565
>new born babies can move rocks
are you just PRETENDING to be stupid? or do you forget you have to grow men to move rocks too?
>>70937526
Dumb loser can't handle being whip
>>70937580
>still ignoring half my post and picking out just one part that you can meme about
yeah, you already conceded 4 posts ago. you're just working out your cognitive dissonance like a baby
>>70937611
get at me once you know anything about what you're talking about
>>70937588
Never said that retard. You still have to raise those adults. Just not nearly as many as the attacking side therefore making your job much easier.
>>70937641
Dumb loser gets whipped harder than he bargained for and trying to find an out
>>70937663
you raise both to age 20. one side moves rocks, the other gets weapons and makes their way to a village
3 months pass the attackers are there and the stone movers have 1/14th of the wall complete
nice meme. tell me who wins
>>70937641
So you realise you're wrong now, you have no evidence, your only counterargument is calling people's arguments memes. I'm glad to have educated you, there's no shame in being mistaken sometimes.
thread objectively answered within the context of the movie in the first few posts,
>>70933829
>>70935568
yet it continues, why?
>>70937456
wasn't that the one where the romans built walls around the town's walls?
>>70937705
>hurr I'll just say he's wrong after I lost the argument 5 posts ago. m-maybe people have forgotten
no, just because you took a few sentences out of my posts and then ignored the rest 5 times in a row after conceding your point doesn't mean we all magically forgot you lost
>>70937526
>you are done talking about this
This is a very compelling argument. I'm sure to obey an anonymous total faggot on an online mongolian shitposting board! ;^)
>>70937704
There are fortifications other than castles. You're under the impression theres either open planes or castles. In reality the walls and infrastructure would exist already otherwise there wouldn't be much to invade or reason to conquer
AHAHAHAHA, stupid soviets, don't they know they need only half troops germans had to defend?
>>70937765
>p-please take me seriously even after I demonstrated my complete lack of knowledge ;___;
not wasting my time
>>70937782
and defense is even more difficult from those positions so that's an even weaker argument. I tackled the castle one because that's the only one that could potentially hold water, and as I showed, even in regards to large defensive structures, it's easier to attack
>>70937740
it's still offense, building walls doesn't mean you're defending
>>70937841
Sure it's harder than defending a castle, but still easier than attacking.
>>70937876
incorrect
>>70937903
Nope
>>70937928
right, because you're just talking out of your ass. good talk
I played a shit ton of strategy and tactical games and here is my opinion
noob attacker<noob defender<skilled attacker<skilled defender
I dare you to beat my army when on a hill in total war. I don't care how good you are. I can watch you march up, and watch how you move, and react accordingly.
>>70937945
Well ok but you're wrong
>>70937968
according to some one single retard who knows nothing? how ever shall i go on?
>>70937841
>Strawman
You're not really arguing. You're just trying to paint the opposite side as stupid without actually proving that case.
>>70938000
you don't know what a strawman is, do you. infact, I don't think you read my post because I never mentioned the intelligence, skill, or competence of either the attackers or the defenders
you know someone's full of shit when they have to start making things up and ignoring your posts in order to try and make a point
>>70937996
You sure talk a lot. Still wrong.
>>70938060
your grade school intellect is showing. done wasting my time on the likes of you
>>70937967
>games
opinion discarded
>>70938091
Oh good, you're gonna stop taking no?
>>70938058
>you don't know what a strawman is, do you.
Attacking a misrepresented form of the defenders argument or statements. For example, I said (translated from clear irony) that you simply told me that I couldn't argue any further and didn't provide an actual argument.
>>70938058
>I don't think you read my post because I never mentioned the intelligence, skill, or competence of either the attackers or the defenders
And which post would this be? We're assuming that their intelligence, skill and competence are equal because otherwise we're not really measuring the scenarios on their own.
>>70938058
>you know someone's full of shit when they have to start making things up and ignoring your posts in order to try and make a point
I didn't make anything up and I haven't been trying to ignore any of your posts.
>>70938192
>you simply told me that I couldn't argue any further and didn't provide an actual argument
do you mean, again? because this conversation has been going on awhile. did you just jump into the middle of two people talking and not bother to read the old posts? or are you the same anon and you just forgot? I'm not here to baby you
>And which post would this be? We're assuming that their intelligence, skill and competence are equal because otherwise we're not really measuring the scenarios on their own
no shit we're assuming everything is equal. I suggest you read through the conversations you jump into
>I didn't make anything up and I haven't been trying to ignore any of your posts.
then start by reading the chain of replies before jumping in feet first in the middle of another persons conversation while taking up half of his side of the argument then bringing in new elements I wasn't talking about with the other guy
why don't you clearly state what you're trying to say, because what I'm saying is this: defending is harder than attacking. some guy mentioned a castle, I pointed out how castles don't grow out of the ground and require a VASTLY superior amount of time, effort, knowledge, and planning, than it does to attack it, without even going into how easy it is to attack it once finished
>>70932794
Gram for gram, defense is easier than offense for the simple reason that you can choose to go on the offense as well if remaining stationary is a disadvantage
However, your enemy is likely on the offense because they believe they have an advantage. Rarely are you attacked out of desperation. Thus, defense is usually more difficult than offense.
>>70938388
>I pointed out how castles don't grow out of the ground and require a VASTLY superior amount of time, effort, knowledge, and planning, than it does to attack it
True, but we're assuming that the castle is already built during peacetime for example.
>without even going into how easy it is to attack it once finished
How would you propose you'd attack a castle, then? Your best shot is literally to sit there until they give up, and assuming they have forces on the outside of the castle, you can expect to get fucked on two fronts.
>>70938522
>Thus, defense is usually more difficult than offense.
With inequal forces favouring the attacker substantially, yes.
>>70938578
>True, but we're assuming that the castle is already built during peacetime for example.
still easier to attack it than defend
>How would you propose you'd attack a castle, then? Your best shot is literally to sit there until they give up, and assuming they have forces on the outside of the castle, you can expect to get fucked on two fronts
sitting out in front is exactly how to get a sure win on ANY castle fortification without access to food. that is a large amount of cities, you basically have be a coastal city to be immune to that and even then we're assuming the attackers have no boats. having an insta-win condition as an attacker sure sounds easy, doesn't it? if they have forces on the outside of the castle, that's a separate engagement and not related to the castle attack. the "attackers" may very well be defending in that case if this secondary outside force were to engage. if we're saying that, why not say the attackers have spies inside that can open the gate? stay on topic
>>70937381
well, technically speaking, USA didn't loose war in Vietnam, they lost it at home, they were somewhat democratic country back then(and they kinda fought Communism, and Communism is bad, because reasons) and mayority of US citizens lost will to send their children into Vietnam.
If USA really wished to win that war, they would, it would be really expensive war but they would won.
But they got rights to check USSR not to put A-Bomb silos all over Cuba thus winning their primary objective
Also, China farted and said :"Enough, go home now!" so USA kinda left
>>70938715
If that's the case then why do attackers lose?
>>70938715
>sitting out in front is exactly how to get a sure win on ANY castle fortification without access to food.
You have to feed your army too, which has to be much larger, you're in foreign territory. Your army has no sanitation, or proper lodgings, they're exposed to the elements, bandits and disease. You have to pay your soldiers to stick around for months at a time, whereas the defenders are stuck there.
This is why defenders usually win siege battles. This is why people bother building fortifications in the first place.
>>70937456
dude, this was last fight, Romans fought against women and children, Gauls lost morale after 15 years of fighting.
Also, back then, Roman way of warfare was so ahead of everything ever seen, you can literally compare it to cavalry vs. tanks.
>always fresh soldier at front line
>never fights more than 10 minutes(then goes to the end of column to relax)
>they had hand on their back all the time(that little thing made huge boost in morale, they never felt "alone")
on other hand Gauls attacked naked with brute force (usually) and laughed at short Gladius(literally AK-47 of cold weapons)
>>70938902
none of those are constants and none of them are anything more than the defenders would have to do themselves
>You have to feed your army
they have to feed, it's a wash. and if you're outside they cannot feed. so that's a + for attacking. foraging and feeding an army is standard stuff it doesn't matter that it's big
> you're in foreign territory
this is only a negative because they could attack you, if they're in a castle there's no negative here
>Your army has no sanitation
they have much more than the people inside the castle
>or proper lodgings
armies have had tents for thousands of years it's nothing at all really
>they're exposed to the elements
see: tents
>bandits and disease
>bandits
lol
>disease
so are the people in the castle, and moreso at that
>You have to pay your soldiers to stick around for months at a time
not all armies paid in that way, first of all. you're forgetting they're all about to loot a city I think they'll be fine
all in all the defense has it much worse, going by the points you just raised. which seem incredibly flimsy to begin with. I think you should admit attacking is easier if the best you can do is bandits and paying your soldiers
>>70938884
says who? how do you lose sitting outside of a city until they give up
>>70939131
>says who?
History. Attackers have lost.
>>70939235
that's why nobody ever attacked, right? *rolls eyes*
>>70939252
Dumb argument
>>70932794
>tfw first thing after seeing that pic is The Grugq
>>70939131
>they have to feed
You have to feed more, and you're in foreign territory. +1 defenders
>they have much more than the people inside the castle
People in the castle dump their shit outside the walls, straight onto the attackers. +1 to defenders
>armies have had tents for thousands of years
That's as good as a house. hence why people live in cities of tents, and everyone attacks each other constantly because defence is pointless. We're just nomads crashing into each other.
>lol
Good argument. Bandits don't exist.
>>70938902
Yeah that sure worked out for the Romans m8....
The Visigoths just raped and pillaged all their way to the heart of the empire while the Romans sat thinking they were safe.
>>70939284
so you're actually doubling down on "well they have to eat so therefore defending is easier..."
and not just dropping it as absurd? alright
>You have to feed more, and you're in foreign territory. +1 defenders
already said how foraging is not an issue for armies and the only downside of a foreign country is the possibility of attack. the vines of the enemy aren't going to entangle their legs. there is no advantage here
>People in the castle dump their shit outside the walls, straight onto the attackers. +1 to defenders
okay, now I know you aren't serious
you've got nothing
>>70939267
you haven't said anything, there's nothing to argue
>>70935599
Cannons can't break stone walls
>>70939353
>"well they have to eat so therefore defending is easier..."
Just pointing out something you never considered - that attacking armies can be 10x as large, they can run out of food long before the defenders. Try to take a more nuanced and less biased look at history, it will serve you well.
>already said how foraging is not an issue for armies
You can say it, but it doesn't make it true.
>okay, now I know you aren't serious
So besieging armies can't suffer from disease? lol.
>>70938715
>sitting out in front is exactly how to get a sure win on ANY castle fortification without access to food
...if you can afford to wait for a very long amount of time, yes. This is why I brought up the forces on the outside. In a completely isolated scenario you might have an advantage if you can deny them access to food and water, but in an actual conflict the attackers would probably not have that much time to just wait around and make no real progress, because you're going to get stuck. Even if both sides get to bring in more forces (and we assume the original attackers have more to begin with), the defending side is at an advantage anyways. If they have food to last for a very long amount of time, they can potentially even grow more while defending.
And if none of that convinces you, how about the fact that you always need a far greater force while attacking? A defending force of "1" is always at an advantage agaisn't an attacking force of "1", and only when you begin to scale up the attacking force (significantly as well) does the defensive position begin to look worse with equal numbers. Consider that both sides have a force of "1". In a plain battle where both sides are equally competent you'd have a tie. Now add a defensive fortification to one side, and that means that they have to have the advantage; one side decides exactly when to attack and can use that fortification or abandon it to attack if necessary. They have more options in their hands.
>but doesn't that mean that they're now the attackers and they're winning because they are attacking and not defending
This is an argument that falls to technicalities. The original attackers are also assumed to be attacking at this point, so if both sides "attack", I'm willing to count the original defenders to still being defenders because they're holding their own ground by making a strike. Also, it was through being defenders that they managed to get to the offensive position.
Alright, look, this topic is not relevant or important enough to warrant this kind of bickering. Chill.
>>70939514
>Just pointing out something you never considered - that attacking armies can be 10x as large, they can run out of food long before the defenders. Try to take a more nuanced and less biased look at history, it will serve you well.
it's a non-issue that's why
>You can say it, but it doesn't make it true.
right, because we see it being a problem so often *rolls eyes*
>So besieging armies can't suffer from disease? lol.
aaaand now you're ignoring my posts. that's 2 pity posts, you have no point and you're having to ignore things I've said in order to try and limp a long with your non-points
>>70939570
>This is why I brought up the forces on the outside
which are a separate issue. why not make any mention of the attackers forces inside, if we're introducing dynamic elements? once again, stay on topic
>In a completely isolated scenario you might have an advantage if you can deny them access to food and water
no, not an advantage. a SURE WIN
> but in an actual conflict the attackers would probably not have that much time to just wait around and make no real progress, because you're going to get stuck
stuck where, in myth mud?
>Even if both sides get to bring in more forces (and we assume the original attackers have more to begin with), the defending side is at an advantage anyways
so you're just imagining a crazy scenario that does nothing, because it still doesn't change the fundamental fact it's easier to defend. you're just trying to mask your point by making it more complex
>If they have food to last for a very long amount of time, they can potentially even grow more while defending
you don't know how city sieges work do you
>And if none of that convinces you, how about the fact that you always need a far greater force while attacking?
that is entirely irrelevant to the difficulty with which either side conducts their business
cont.
>>70939386
Yes they can. That's why we made cannons in the first place you faggot.
>>70939570
in your scenario
>They have more options in their hands
they also don't have more options. 2 is not more than near infinite approaches and methods of attack, with still the option of starving them in their fortification, forcing them to sally out into a pitch battle. which is not a defensive position
>This is an argument that falls to technicalities
not really, it falls on knowing what attacking and defending is
>The original attackers are also assumed to be attacking at this point, so if both sides "attack", I'm willing to count the original defenders to still being defenders because they're holding their own ground by making a strike
you mean the defenders are now attacking. gotcha.
>Also, it was through being defenders that they managed to get to the offensive position.
it's irrelevant how they got to their position of being on the attack. this conversation is about which is easier: attacking or defending. nothing you've said has said anything to contradict that, you've only tried to muddy the waters and try to vaguely change the topic by somehow making a defender now attacking into a "defense" because their early defense led them to now be able to attack, or some other such nonsense. when that has no bearing on which is the more difficult action to take: attack or defend
>>70935533
>>70933882
they weren't exactly in a castle...
>>70935988
Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Hannibal, Alexander the Great....all these generals were of the opinion that attacking gives you the initiative and therefore the advantage. Walls are different. Also you give Malta as an example, it was literally considered impregnable and it proved it many times from Roman times to ww2, a village in japan is not the same.
>>70936611
>sieges are about the battles
most besieged cities woul sally forth if they couldnt' wait their enemy out. Most of the time sieges were meant to slow down the enemy until winter/supply lines faultered
