Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
You don't confuse "war" and "battle", do you?
No I do not. I am less pedantic when it comes to "battle" and "warfare."

Another Roman example might be more useful; Caesar did not fight all Gaul armies that faced his. Sometimes he simply avoided a battle and waited till the superior enemy army disintegrated due to inferior logistics. He defeated and discouraged several tribes like that.
And? What about the famous "battle" of Worcester in 1405, where the English forces the Welsh to quit the field, without anyone being killed.

What many ignore was that only occurred because the English had the ability to kill the Welsh if the Welsh tried to attack, and the English didn't need to attack the Welsh - again, so what?

The German invasion of Denmark in 1940 killed less than a hundred Danes and was the quickest war ever (officially no war, though).
So the Danes quit without a fight? Why? Because if they didn't the Germans would have basically killed more than they could stand.

You win by being focussed on killing. Very rarely you may not have to kill. So what? I am as dismissive as Clausewitz and Foch of the idea you can reliably win any armed conflict without visiting very sever harm or threat there of, upon the enemy.