ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE SCYTHIANS

The first effective use of conventional forces against guerrillas was Alexander the Great's Scythian campaign. As a military force, the Scythians were very much like terrorists. Here are some points of comparison:

• They were nomads, with no fixed location or base.
• They had no set organizational structure (hierarchy) that could be leveraged through a decapitation attack (as Alexander used against the Persians by attacking Darius).
• Their force was self-contained and therefore didn't present any vulnerable lines of communication or material.
• The Scythians were very mobile horse archers that could could attack from a distance, swarm on vulnerabilities when exposed, and flee to safety when engaged.

The totality of these strengths allowed the Scythians to defeat all conventional enemies sent against them. Alexander changed this. Here's how. Alexander recognized that the only way to defeat the enemy was to trap the enemy in a situation where their mobility was negated and they were forced to engage. There are two ways to do this. The first way is to trap the enemy on ground that prevented mobility. However, the Scythians were unlikely to fall into this trap.

The second solution was to create a situation where the enemy was trapped by the maneuver of forces in a way that restricted mobility. Alexander chose this solution. To do this, Alexander sent a small force of vulnerable calvary forward against the Scythians. The Scythians quickly began to swarm on this small force by riding around them in a circle and pelting them with arrows. While this "bait" was engaged, he moved forward light missile infantry as a screen to his maneuvers.

Behind the screen, he moved his remaining calvary in three columns (left wing, center, and right wing) to positions that would allow him to trap a segment of the encircling Scythians between the calvary "bait" and his main force. Once positioned, he charged forward, springing the trap. A large segment of the Scythians were thereby trapped, where they were either cut down or captured.

The result of this action quickly resulted in the capitulation of the Scythians. The reason was that their tactics had been defeated. Without an ability to attack with success, they were without recourse.

Here are the lessons that we can derive from this:

• Guerrilla and terrorist forces have a tendency to form into semi-conventional targets when presented with an opportunity free from threat of attack.
• Vulnerability attracts guerrilla and terrorist swarming attacks which thereby presents opportunity. In cyberwarfare, this is called a honeypot.
• The main conventional thrust should be held back until the enemy is surrounded with overwhelming force. Extreme efforts should be made to screen this maneuver and to limit attacks on the enemy until the vital moment.

Compare this to the way we are fought the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. In Afghanistan, we broke apart enemy forces (in large training camps of conventional organization) from a distance with indecisive force (air power). Further, we attacked enemy forces in fortifications that restricted mobility (Tora Bora) with insufficient ground forces (special operations forces) and allowed them to escape. In Iraq, we continue to pacify the whole of the country which prevents the guerrillas/terrorists from forming into larger semi-conventional formations (organizations with middle management of 350 people or greater) that can be engaged. In both locations, were are loathe to create vulnerabilities that may be used as traps (due to the fear of casualties). In all locations (across the globe), we are quick to disrupt terrorist networks and are likely to decapitate leadership when the opportunity presents itself. This is done even when terrorists operate in permissive environments (where police presence is in place).

Taken in their entirety, the tactics we have used are indecisive. Alexander points to a potential alternative.

Comments

[Patrick Logan]

The other side of this equation though is today's society is exposed to much greater damage from any one of these bands of terrorists due to our extreme centralization and interdependence, and due to today's even "modest" weapons of mass destruction that are easily available.

[Christopher Allen]

A connection with the previous post -- what were the sizes of the Scythian non-heirarchal stuctures? Your thesis seems that part of their failure was due to the fact that they "gathered" against the threat of Alexander and thus were more easily eliminated.

[John Robb]

Patrick - I agree, there is more exposure now given a global transportation system and porous borders. However, the concept of trapping terrorists as they swarm on targets is useful.

Christopher - If Scythian tribal structures are anything like today's (such as the Bedouin), every 5th man is a leader (a sheik).

Terrorists swarm today in a different way. Distance between operational swarm elements is flexible due to global communications. Occasionally, these elements "hive" in camps while staging large scale efforts. Therefore, to effectively trap them you need to think in terms of a globally coordinated and simultaneous effort. The bait is already (see Patrick's post) there in abundance. However, the dynamic of the trap is to give them pressure-free room to operate in observable locations, so that when the trap is sprung it can crush the network.

[Henry Bramlet]

John-

Interesting analysis of Alexander, but I cannot draw the same conclusions that you do. If you are talking about the battle of Jaxartes river, then what you had was a tactical "honey-pot" maneuver but a totaly different strategic maneuver. Yet you are using the tactical analogy to recommend a strategic shift in American response to terrorists. Alexander did not strategically bait the Scythians into attacking. Rather, he did what most westerners do: he went to where they are, brought unimaginable force, and crushed them in an overwhelming display of power. Sure, he tactically won the battle through confusion, but the war was won doing what Westerners do best: finding the enemy and landing scores of troops to deal with them.

I go into detail on my blog.

In any case, I like the analogy- but think it may not be as useful as suggested.

[John Robb]

Henry,

Going to the enemy is totally in line with my analysis. I am fairly sure I didn't say that we shouldn't have done that (I am more critical of how we fight the battles once we are there). In regards to globally dispersed terrorist networks, this technique still applies despite it being applied on a global scale.

Your distinction between Alexander's tactical innovation and his strategic campaign is well founded. Your post is excellent and I heartily recommend that people read it:

http://holdfast.blogspot.com/2004_04_04_holdfast_archive.html#108136749817862764

I don't however agree that Ramadi and Fallujah represent the culmination of a correct strategy. We are likely digging for the terrorists that threaten us in the wrong location.

[mic erins]

Scythians as terrorists? I see what you're getting at, but remember terrorists didn't actually exist 2300 years ago. Scythians were widely feared, of course, but it's interesting that most of the large battle campaigns we hear about involving Scythians happened on THEIR ground by foreign invaders. Cyrus, Darius, Alexander the Great. It's a smart & interesting comparison, but if I were to study the Scythians, their culture & history, I wouldn't let "terrorist" analogies colour my whole perception of them. The same can be said about the Huns, the Sarmatians & Goths, the Anglo-Saxons & the Vikings, & the Mongols.

[nathan meyer]

mic erins--I agree with you that, as we look at it today, the Scythians are more along the lines of a guerilla force using conventional unconventional warfare tactics against a stronger opponent. Huns, Mongols would seem to be more like exemplary maneuver warfare specialists. Goths and Vikings were certainly sources of terrorist-like operations if you look at modern terrorists as (much in the manner of old-time pirates) as a criminal activity. Raid, loot, rape and pillage, murder and go home. (not taking into account eastern/northern England or Saxony where they just moved in.)

However from a historian viewpoint I do disagree with you one point, that is terrorists are not a group into and of themselves like the Scythians, or the Viet Cong or anyone else. Terror is a weapon system or a collection of tactics, not a belief system or ethnic group. I think terror did exist 2300 years ago.Though it is useful for academic discussion to refer to followers of this system of social change as a group in actuality it would be like referring to all US gangster as Tech-9’ers or AK-47’ers. Any group could use terror as a weapon.

As an example, Hamas or Martyr’s Brigade of PLO have no hope of defeating Israeli military/police forces. They use terror in an attempt to circumvent normal military operations and attack civilians in order to cause a paradigm shift in the Israeli/World society leading to formation of independent Palestine state. Hezbollah--sp--are more of a guerilla group attack in raids on border military targets from Lebanon and Syria. They seek traditional military objectives using unconventional tactics against a superior military force. Hamas is the political organization, terror is there weapon. Thus they are “terrorists” but so are Abu Sayef in the P.I.s and so were the KKK in ‘60s Alabama, all of these groups not sharing any political ideologies or connections except in a very broad sense

I think it is very important for people to understand this viewpoint of terror as “weapon” and not as “group of people” if understanding about the “enemy” is to be achieved. I’m not trying take credit for coming up with this viewpoint, just passionately spreading it .

[WeSaferThemHealthier]

Nathan,

Agree with this but: How would terrorism make a Palestinian state more likely to be conretised? It seems that it only helps maximalists on either side and doesn't get them any closer to statehood ( it certainly seems to make the Israeli electorate less willing to compromise ). Killing Israeli soldiers seems to have gotten Israel out of Lebanon but have the opposite effect on the West Bank.

One might say that the goal is to provoke a confrontation but if the Isra-Pal conflict ever goes from a "lukewarm" war to a hot war, it won't help Palestinians get a state at all, quite the opposite since a hot war is waged with conventional weapons and tactics and there, the Israelis are far above any potential enemy. Perhaps the "transfer option" will become more popular and will get done.

My personal hypothesis ( quite open to falsification ) is that there are a couple of purposes:
1 ) Hatred and fulfilling religious duties.
2 ) Waiting until demography does its magic and Palestinians outnumber Israelis or Arabs form a bigger proportion of the Israeli citizenry.
3 ) Building a local power base. Since nothing unites people than an Enemy, having Israel drop bombs is an effective way of distracting attention away from the local rulers. The same happens in the greater region, it seems.

I realise you very well could have been arguing that Hamas et al only think that a paradigm shift will give them a state and are factually wrong. However, they must realise by now that it won't give them a state and only hardens Israeli attitudes and the link between the US and Israel.

[Nathan]

Right, exactly. I agree with everything you are saying in regards to the truth on the ground. I meant only, as you say, that they seek not a military outcome but a paradigm shift.
Many people feel the use of the expression "one person's guerilla is another's terrorist," I was trying to say that no, a guerilla is someone who uses unconventional tactics to win a conventional war, and a terrorist is some one who uses random acts of violence to strike fear in a population and force a paradigm shift in beliefs. Like the anarchists at the turn of the century.

[WeSaferThemHealthier]

What paradigm do you think they're trying to put in place?

What paradigm do you think will actually be put in place?

I know this isn't exactly an easy one. Nevertheless, I'm curious to get someone else's point of view on this especially if that person doesn't appear to be of either the Noam "blame the US" Chomski or Charles "not the US's fault" Krauthammer schools of a priori thought.

[nathan meyer]

This is the second draft of this post. So many nuances in this thing it’s difficult to stay concise. Using very broad strokes and speaking in generalities I would say that, understanding that they have no hope of military victory (not after 1948, 6-day war, Yom Kippur, ect, all--I mean say what you want, but pound for pound Israel is toughest military in the world) they seek to use terror to gain concessions in general but are seeking the paradigm shift of making the Israeli people so tired of bloodshed and frightened that they grant Palestinian Independence which would include complete removal of occupational forces and Jewish Settlements.

As far as what gets put into place; Many people are going to disagree with what I’m about to say, and it may even make some people angry, but it’s just an opinion. I think the paradigm shift has already happened, I think the 50 year or so campaign of terror has worked. I think the recent “Road Map to Peace,” is the first agreement allowing for a “two state nation,” since Israeli inception, ever. Before then all peace solutions involved the Palestinians under Israeli control. I think the Palestine cause rallied the Arab world (already big, big haters of a Jewish state idea) in opposition of the west. With the fall of the Soviet Union these states were no longer under pressure “to keep a lid on it” as it were. The result, growing support of terrorist organizations with GLOBAL intentions against the west. No Israeli support by the U S, a great deal of animosity goes away. Washington realizes that a creation of a Palestinian state would go a long way to mollify the Arab world hatred of the U. S. This in turn would take a large portion of the wind out of the sails of the anti-”crusader” terror networks. 1) PLO kept pressure on Israel, 2) Israel fights fire with fire 3) Arab world hates Israel because of this and America by proxy 3) This creates permissive or openly friendly environment for terror networks who launch terror campaign against broader west. 4) Twin towers. 5) We realize that with democracies in place in two key middle-east countries as a start we can win hearts and minds 6) Arabs still hate Jews, still permissive atmosphere 7) Give Palestine Statehood, remove core fire. Permissive atmosphere dampened and terrorists now truly isolated 8) kill/imprison isolated terrorists 9) Go back to a pre-1970’s world where terror is ineffectual and relatively rare.
I think that if Yassar Arrafat wasn’t so corrupt, if Islamic extremists within the Palestinian people weren’t screwing it up by stating there is no victory until the “illegitimate state of Israel is eradicated” (that might by actual Hamas press-statement, lol). It would already be even closer to happening than it is.

I realized I just reduced the situation to a child’s prime of simplicity, but it’s a stab at it. I tried to be neither pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine in the statement. As a matter of historical trivia I do know that Palestinian is a western corruption of “Philistine” as in the old testament, so the conflict is roughly, oh 5-thousand years old. Also biologists did a study and not only do Israeli’s and Palestinian’s share a closer match in DNA with each other than they do with anyone else in the world, it IS the closest matching DNA between to ethnic groups in the world. Basically, they’re the same people. What a mess.

[Sue Abramson]

Yes, the Middle East is still a mess, particularly when national leaders try to make peace, apparently without reference to our Manufacturer's handbook.

The origins of the conflict come from our Maker calling the Hebrew, Abraham, four millennia ago as the next step in fulfilling his promise to restore mankind to the original blueprint, the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in which humans were in direct communion with their Creator and Father, the blessed state in which Adam and Eve first lived; but they were banished from the Garden for their treachery to God - two millennia before Abraham.

Abraham and Sarah "helped God" by giving Abraham his first son, Ishmael (whose offspring are Arabs). In God's time, Isaac, the son of the promise, was born; the promise passed to one of Isaac's two sons, Jacob, renamed Israel, infuriating Isaac's other son, Esau; Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, joining two streams of hatred against Jacob/ Israel which continues to this day.

And Arabs have maintained their bloodlines by marrying their cousins?

Research about Levites DNA trace their origins to one forefather (Aaron) "three" [and a half] millennia ago, the researchers say; the Books of Moses required, I think, that the priests of Israel marry only within the tribe of Levi. They did!

Back to the origins of the ME conflict: two millennia after Abraham, the son of David, the redeemer came to his people, Judah, to re-establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth (Judas "helped God," but in a vastly different way than he intended) and to fulfill the ancient substitutionary sacrifice, foreshadowed in Mosaic sacrifices, to make it possible for mankind to have the holy Spirit of God within them to write his instructions on softened human hearts to guide them.

Thousands of Jewish people accepted their redeemer and, from them, the good news spread to some of the rest of Israel, who were scattered and "lost" among the nations - eventually to the four corners of the earth; for two and a half centuries after David, the northern kingdom, "the House of Israel," "Efrayim" (son of Joseph) had been punished for treachery to their God; they lost their identity as Israel, God's people, and were seen as gentiles. They became known as "Christians" as they accepted the redeemer and again learned God's way of life for his people and were grafted into Israel with all who accepted the redeemer.

A century after the redeemer, "helping God" to establish His Kingdom on earth, the Jewish people rebelled against Rome again. They named their leader the messiah, cutting off support from their fellow Jews who had already given their allegiance to Yeshua of Nazareth... and the Christians who were not Jewish cut off connection with Jewish (God's) holy days so their heads would stayed attached. For nearly two millennia, Judah and his brother, Efrayim (Joseph), the "House of Israel," have been estranged.

Now God is regathering his people: Judah first. He caused the state of Israel to be established in one day (in May 1948).

And God is moving Christians to support Israel, and among some to search for the Hebrew roots of Christianity. And some feel that they may belong to the ten tribes of Israel. (But there is no way to prove it yet.) And Jewish scholars are publishing their researches about where the ten tribes went and who they are (Yair Davidiy of Brit-Am is one); so it may be that about half of Americans (mostly from Joseph) belong to ten of Israel's tribes. [It is, at least, one way to tie powerful American sympathies more closely to Israel]. And God's people ARE grafted in to Israel, whether biologically and/or spiritually.

OK - this all leads to the "Palestinian" problem. SOMEWHERE in the Prophets, God said that Judah and Joseph would push the Philistines out of the Land of Israel, and the Philistines would fly away west... "Helping God," I see that the Western Sahara has only 262,000+ Arabs and Berbers trying to stay independent of Morocco, with plenty of room, facing the Atlantic Ocean, with phosphates...
The Palestinians have nearly a century of fighting experience... but a generation was taught to hate Israel. THERE is where they might have their Palestinian state?

Jews accepted people, after considerable testing, I guess, into their community who would live according to Torah and the customs developed over the millennia. Hasn't the state of Israel accepted Arab Christians, even Palestinians (those who do not hate Jews, that is)?

What GOD does will fulfill his prophecies perfectly - but in a way that no one can even imagine!

[Sue Abramson]

Yes, the Middle East is still a mess, particularly when national leaders try to make peace, apparently without reference to our Manufacturer's handbook.

The origins of the conflict come from our Maker calling the Hebrew, Abraham, four millennia ago as the next step in fulfilling his promise to restore mankind to the original blueprint, the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in which humans were in direct communion with their Creator and Father, the blessed state in which Adam and Eve first lived; but they were banished from the Garden for their treachery to God - two millennia before Abraham.

Abraham and Sarah "helped God" by giving Abraham his first son, Ishmael (whose offspring are Arabs). In God's time, Isaac, the son of the promise, was born; the promise passed to one of Isaac's two sons, Jacob, renamed Israel, infuriating Isaac's other son, Esau; Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, joining two streams of hatred against Jacob/ Israel which continues to this day.

And Arabs have maintained their bloodlines by marrying their cousins?

Research about Levites DNA trace their origins to one forefather (Aaron) "three" [and a half] millennia ago, the researchers say; the Books of Moses required, I think, that the priests of Israel marry only within the tribe of Levi. They did!

Back to the origins of the ME conflict: two millennia after Abraham, the son of David, the redeemer came to his people, Judah, to re-establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth (Judas "helped God," but in a vastly different way than he intended) and to fulfill the ancient substitutionary sacrifice, foreshadowed in Mosaic sacrifices, to make it possible for mankind to have the holy Spirit of God within them to write his instructions on softened human hearts to guide them.

Thousands of Jewish people accepted their redeemer and, from them, the good news spread to some of the rest of Israel, who were scattered and "lost" among the nations - eventually to the four corners of the earth; for two and a half centuries after David, the northern kingdom, "the House of Israel," "Efrayim" (son of Joseph) had been punished for treachery to their God; they lost their identity as Israel, God's people, and were seen as gentiles. They became known as "Christians" as they accepted the redeemer and again learned God's way of life for his people and were grafted into Israel with all who accepted the redeemer.

A century after the redeemer, "helping God" to establish His Kingdom on earth, the Jewish people rebelled against Rome again. They named their leader the messiah, cutting off support from their fellow Jews who had already given their allegiance to Yeshua of Nazareth... and the Christians who were not Jewish cut off connection with Jewish (God's) holy days so their heads would stayed attached. For nearly two millennia, Judah and his brother, Efrayim (Joseph), the "House of Israel," have been estranged.

Now God is regathering his people: Judah first. He caused the state of Israel to be established in one day (in May 1948).

And God is moving Christians to support Israel, and among some to search for the Hebrew roots of Christianity. And some feel that they may belong to the ten tribes of Israel. (But there is no way to prove it yet.) And Jewish scholars are publishing their researches about where the ten tribes went and who they are (Yair Davidiy of Brit-Am is one); so it may be that about half of Americans (mostly from Joseph) belong to ten of Israel's tribes. [It is, at least, one way to tie powerful American sympathies more closely to Israel]. And God's people ARE grafted in to Israel, whether biologically and/or spiritually.

OK - this all leads to the "Palestinian" problem. SOMEWHERE in the Prophets, God said that Judah and Joseph would push the Philistines out of the Land of Israel, and the Philistines would fly away west... "Helping God," I see that the Western Sahara has only 262,000+ Arabs and Berbers trying to stay independent of Morocco, with plenty of room, facing the Atlantic Ocean, with phosphates...
The Palestinians have nearly a century of fighting experience... but a generation was taught to hate Israel. THERE is where they might have their Palestinian state?

Jews accepted people, after considerable testing, I guess, into their community who would live according to Torah and the customs developed over the millennia. Hasn't the state of Israel accepted Arab Christians, even Palestinians (those who do not hate Jews, that is)?

What GOD does will fulfill his prophecies perfectly - but in a way that no one can even imagine!

[dlt]

Sue,

A cobbled collection of superstitions, and ethno-centric myths does not make modern geopolitics or justice

[nathan]

dlt--at first I’d be inclined to agree with you. Then I looked at your post from her point of view. You managed to portray yourself with just one sentence in exactly the same light you were trying to criticize the above post for. Sometimes political correct intelligentsia can come across just as bigoted in the name of anti-bigotry.
Besides her post is pertinent. It may be long winded but I’m living in a glass house as far as that is concerned, lol. Remember the Palestinians and Israelis are sitting on opposite sides of the fence/belief she just explained. The middle east struggle is about land and water and power, as are all geo-political struggles. It is also about identity. From an anthropological/historical (yes many see it as history) view point her perspecitve is relative--thus giving us an ability to understand a crucible and epicenter of world politics--the above post is important. Exclude her information and you understand only one-half of Jewish/Israeli motivation and probably a good 3/4 of Palestine belief-driven anger.

[Cody]

dlt -- you raise a fundamental element to this discussion that is important to the whole mess: that religious belief is valid to this conflict. in the same way that land and power are important to each side, biblical doctrine (both the Hebrew bible -old testimant- and the Qu'ran)counts just as much to those who subscribe to it (for the record i am not one of these). to call the foundations of a conflict that is thousands of years in the making a "cobbled collection of superstitions" not only makes you sound ignorant and snobbish but it trivializes an enormously important aspect of the argument for both sides. I am not advocating the settlement of world conflicts on the basis of religious doctrine (because lets face it, that stuff is for more complex than the real world)but it is extremely crucial that a resolution pay homage to the beliefs of everyone involved.

[cody]

one more thing. this discussion forum was based on the tactics of Alexander the Great dealing with the Scithian tribes of Bactria during his Persian annexation. Mic errins made the argument that terrorist did not even exist 2300 years ago. Nathan myer already corrected this idea with his response, but there is more to it than what he said.

The truth is that terrorism has been a widely adopted tool by a litany of commanders in history. The ones that you mentionded namely the huns and the Mongols utilized this tool the most effectively. vikings had no real intentions of occupying conqured lands, just rapping it for their own gain, while Ghengis Khan litterally annihlated entire cities and their inhabitants as a warning to all who opposed him. he was attmpting to force a paradigm shift in the same way the palastinians are trying to now. Alexander the great did it at Tyre, and Persepolis. the US made no quams about using terrorism in its purist form with their "Shock and Awe" campaign. the crusades WERE TERRORIST EXPEDITIONS ON BOTH SIDES, as two world powers tried to show who's god was the baddest on the block. the cold war was the same thing. INQUISITIOIN = TERRORISM, I could go on and on, and so could anybody. before we make dismisive arguments it is important to think a bit first.

[Dan]

Brilliant post. Brilliant discussion

Two quick comments to Cody.

First, there was little Muslim recognition of a religious threat during the Crusade. The Muslims viewed the Crusades as another barbarian invasion, and certainly the Crusader's habit of forming alliances with Muslims against fellow Christians backed this thesis up. Public knowledge of the Crusades as a religious attack spread in the Arab world around the time of the founding of the American and European Universities in Egypt and Greater Syria.

Second, the "Inquition" people talk about was the Spanish Inquisition, which functioned as an arm of the Catholic Monarchies (Spain). The Spanish Inquisition was responsible to the King, not the Pope, and had no forward ideological agenda. I don't think it can be described as terrorism in any meaningful sense.

[Mark Hord]

Terrorism has indeed been present a very long time. But, I wonder sometimes how tunnel vision affects our decisions. Like the mistake so often made by militaries of refighting the last war in the current situation, I think we see boogeymen that are only hiding the next generation of boogeymen. At the turn of the 20th century it was the anarchists we feared until the bloodbath of the first world war. That war only led to the rise of communism and the fear of nuclear war. One has to wonder what we are not seeing because our focus is on terrorism. But I think the response to terrorism is not likely military - I think the solution is more along the lines of how Anarchism was defeated almost a century ago.

Asprey, when referring to Callwell's classic book, _Small Wars_ had one very interesting observation:
"Major Callwell laid far more stress on military problems of colonization than on political problems, a priority natural for a professional soldier. He did not seem to realize that a solution of the political problem, either in whole or in part, could have diminished or eliminated the military problem..." Robert Asprey, _War in the Shadows_

[Pat Pastor]

Regarding the Scythians, mic erins is right for the period post-550 BC. Cyrus, Darius, and Alexander attacked the Scythians on the steppe.

However, if you look back about 400-350 years before Alexander (late eighth to seventh centuries BC), and the Scythians and Cimmerians, who appear to have been a closely related group, were the aggressors, descending from the steppe and establishing themselves in Northern Iran and the Anatolian plateau, from there targeting temples, tombs, and unfortified towns throughout the Middle East as far as Palestine and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor.

I believe that true cavalry is relatively recent (about 900 BC in the Eurasian steppe, with spread to the Iranian plateau shortly thereafter) and subsequent adoption by the empires of Assyria and Urartu by 700 BC.

However, the key thing about the Scythians or Cimmerians and their use of cavalry (in contrast to the heavier Assyrian cavalry) is their mobility and use of swarming tactics- e.g. the Parthian shot.

Arquilla and Ronfeldt from RAND write about the Scythians as examples of this, and Sean Edwards expands on it, using the same example of Alexander's battles against the Scythians.

The Cimmerians of the 8th and 7th centuries BC were raiders--they would hit soft (unfortified) targets, take slaves, livestock, and treasure, and then ride away. The fear they generated among Middle Eastern peoples and as far away as Greece is palpable when reading the Old Testament prophets and early Greek lyric poetry.

At Tabal in 705 BC, and in other lesser-known battles that must have happened (against Phrygia and Urartu, for instance), we know little about their tactics, but we can assume use of similar swarming techniques to those used against Alexander.

The composition of an Assyrian army, and probably that of a Phrygian or Urartian army, is of formations of infantry archers protected by armored, spear-wielding shield-bearers (the Greeks transformed this troop type into a highly cohesive standalone fighting force at about this time), supported by heavy cavalry.

Robert Drews, in Early Riders, assesses this paired archer-shieldbearer structure as uniquely vulnerable to cavalry swarming.

[enigma_foundry]

The well designed honey pot. That was exactly had I had hoped Iraq was going to be, however I was certain that it wasn't being run with that kind of thinking when we so quickly and wrongly attacked Falluajah after the contractors were killed there. An elementary error, if a honeypot was the idea...

[Other Kevin]

Essentially, Fallujah did become the honeypot. The problem is that the Scythians were a population unto themselves. The terrorists are a part of a larger population - and they blend in to it, and can dissappear back into it sometimes. They can emerge from it when they feel the time is right. This is a different conflict.

Second, Alexander's action was on the tactical level. Attempting such style on the geopolitical (Iraq as a terror magnet) or even the lower strategic level (Fallujah as a terror magnet) seems doomed to failure - especially since in demoralizes the civilian population of the honeypot area to an excessive degree. They are unlikely to cooperate further in the future with the coalition.

On the tactical level, the model may be a lone humvee to be suddenly reinforced when attacked by hidden special forces in the population may be effective in this tactic - but given the use of IEDs etc. and the ability of the terrorists to choose to attack only on grounds of their choosing in such an instance, it likely would be fuitile and merely add up to higher casualties - and be extremely detrimental to moral for the soldiers who know they may be called on to use as the bait.

Besides, the weakness that terrorists and guerrellas attack now is public opinion - the military and the business community can withstand the attacks.

By some estimates (the very highest ones), counting both sides, more Americans died in one day at Antietam than in every war we have fought since Korea combined.

In part because of the effectiveness of the anti-war forces in the media (which was far less influencial in 1860-1864), we see Vietnam as unwinnable even while we killed Viet Cong at 40-1 ratios in parts of the Tet offensive. We deflected every attack the North threw at the South, including two all-out offensives, while hardly attacking the North at all. We fought most everything wrong, and still were winning.

To the Media, the war was an unwinnable quagmire.

The concept that forth generation war defeats a conventional army may need some rethinking - ussually its the public that defeats its miliatary.

Chaing Chi Chech (spelling varies; feel free to use an alternative) was abandoned by his people because he was unpopular from the begining; his forces were largely beaten in the end by conventional forces combined with a popular uprising in multiple areas - not slaughtered by superior 4GW tactics.

Our greatest weakness is our inability to stomach anything resembling sacrifice.