Moral was more important than numbers and equipment. Is

>>2668086

Depends on the discrepancy of said numbers and equipment.

>>2668086
I assume you mean "Morale". And for a lot of warfare, yes. More modern sorts of warfare, not as much, but for pretty much everything pre 1870s, hell yes. Then again, numbers and equipment play a lot into morale; nobody wants to break and run when they think they have an easy victory ahead of them.

File: 45353435.png (52KB, 771x543px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 771x543px

>>2668086
Certainly the case for the battle of Suiyang, and consequently the An Shi Rebellion.

"It is better to be on hand with 10 men, than absent with 10,000"

~Timur

>>2668086
Yes see battle of the golden spurs and agincourt

>>2668093
Yes i ment morale, forgot to spellcheck the thing

>>2668086
I'd rather have one thousand men who aren't sure if they fucking care about a battle than one guy who's really fucking psyched to be there.

On the other hand you're probably better off with one thousand motivated soldiers defending their homes and wives than two thousand mercenaries you haven't paid in three weeks who keep muttering about how the other guys probably have at least some money to pay them with.

So basically what >>2668090 said.

>>2668086

No ask the Russians.

They literally BTFO Napoleon and Hitler through attrition.

>>2668168
You should up the numbers on the side of the fuckoffs.

I'd rather have 1000 hell-bent warriors defending home and hearth than 10,000 mercenaries only in it for the money, and not really giving a fuck either way.

Motivation matters a LOT.

>>2668176
it takes an assfuckton of morale to let your country burn to the ground just so you can be king of the ashes.

>>2668168
Obviously 1 vs 1000 isnt even a question. But lets say there is a 20 000 strong army, defending it's home and families, dont really care if they die, going up against a 60 000 strong army of better equiped soldiers, who kinda dont really want to be there, and would really want to survive the battle as most men do. Men leading the armies are equally competent. Who wins ?

>>2668226
All things being equal, greater numbers win.

Strategy>morale>numbers in the scenario you pose.

As long as the smaller force gained the strategic advantage, they could probably win.

>>2668086
They tend to correlate.

better equipment equals better morale

>>2668226
My money would probably be on the 20000 based purely on what you've said and all other factors being equal.

If the 60000 can just quit the battle with minimal consequence then there's no question about it, the defenders will almost certainly win. They know they have no choice about fighting to the death, and will only break if they're overwhelmed by short term fear- they should fight on through most things, since if they lose there won't be anywhere to go and/or their children will all die. If the armies are absolutely equal then in theory for every defender who dies, an attacker will also die, and that's just not a sustainable casualty rate for a group who have shit theyd like to do in their life.

>>2668200

Its more like ignorance and apathy on the part of the people of Russia.

>>2668109
>You're so damn loyal you started eating the people in the city you're defending to hold off a big rebel army.
I wonder how hard Confucian boners were when they heard the news at the time.

>>2668357
There's something on Wikipedia about that:
"Zhang Xun and his deeds were highly praised by many later scholars, government officials, and writers. For example, the Song Dynasty official Wen Tianxiang, who was himself greatly praised for his faithfulness to Song and refusal to submit to Yuan Dynasty, listed Zhang in his Song of Righteousness (Zhengqige, 正氣歌) as one of the persons to admire for their righteousness. However, some, including the Qing Dynasty scholar Wang Fuzhi, severely criticized him for not only permitting but encouraging cannibalism, and some others, such as the modern historian Bo Yang, while not as critical, nevertheless pointed out the lamentable nature of Zhang's actions."

>>2668086
>Moral was more important than numbers and equipment.

No

>Morale was more important than numbers OR equipment.

Yes


There is no one factor that rules all in military science. Morale is the most important factor, however leading by a strong edge in area can not make up for a truly huge discrepancy in several other areas.

>>2668666
>Qing and Modern China no likey Zhang's sacrifices.
Shouldve known, those two eras are fags.

>>2668086
pretty much

having OP weapons and outnumbering someone 100:1 doesn't matter if they all run away like little bitches

lot of outnumbered battles tend to be won when the outnumbered army makes a them-sized hole in the enemy's army.

>>2668086
*morale

File: 20160531163135.jpg (14KB, 400x520px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x520px

>>2668086
No

>>2668086
Having a large well equipped and fed army can greatly boost the morale.

>>2668086
Strategy > equipment > numbers > morale

>>2668086
All of them are equally important.

Just play Total war

>>2670226
Acktually EU4 is a better game than total war and has reasonable DLC.

>>2670226
>>2670267
I meant from a historical aspect, not how it works in fucking games