Markup View

Author: jatay3

Aug 2nd 2013 at 9:33:52 PM

In which case all that would mean is "the way humans usually fight." Any military term that means that means nothing and might as well not exist.

I am well aware that "ambushes" and "harrassment" are older then phalanxes. That is my point. All you are doing is using "guerilla" as a synonymn for "small unit tactics." It is not the tactics that make a guerrila a guerrila. By that definition tribal warfare, vendetta, reconnaissance, and even criminality are "Guerrila warfare" as the tactics used in all are recognizably similar despite extremely disparate goals. Guerrila warfare has to be a strategy based on such or it is of no value as a term. You might as well just say "warfare" and spare three syllables. There can be no such thing as "guerilla tactics." Only "guerilla strategy". Which in fact the Finnish army was not engageing in. It was engageing in "conventional"(also a misnomer as it is not the normal way to fight and is no more fraught with conventions then other forms)warfare that happened to be taking place in a forest. And like all "conventional" forces it engaged in maneuvers round the enemies flank and sent scout parties to dominate no-mans-land.