Imagine being a small-time soldier in the 1800s facing the greatest threat the world had seen since Caesar and sniffing out that a major rouse was happening right in front of you.
Two of the enemy's most famous and revered generals approach the final bridge in place, the one you and your comrades must defend. They say there's a temporary cease-fire, called by your commanding officer. You smell a ruse. It looks like Napoleon's generals simply want to take the bridge without having to fight.
You, a loyal patriot, alert your superiors. Something is amiss.
In response, the enemy generals laugh and mock your commanding officer for allowing a subordinate to speak to a CO in this manner. "Your army must be in disarray," they tell him. You're promptly removed and punished.
Also, it was indeed a ruse. They take the bridge. And your country is forever known as just another stepping stone for maybe the greatest commander of all time.
This incident is known as the Capture of Tabor Bridge and it is widely considered one of, if not the greatest military bluff of all time.
With satellites, espionage, and instant communication, it seems unlikely that we'll ever see something that brazen again -- at least on the battlefield.
The Empty Fort Strategy
There are some great examples of bluffs including schemes like making noise, kicking up dust, and sending fake letters to trick the enemy into surrendering to an army much smaller.
But the craziest bluff you'll ever hear of is something called the Empty Fort Strategy.
In this strategy, a fort, castle, or otherwise fortified township pulls off an insane and desperate bluff to save itself.
The Empty Fort utilizes reverse psychology and a general bluffing strategy.
The idea is this: make a fort look like it's laying an ambush.
So, instead of hiding to make the fort look abandoned hoping the enemy will leave, you make the fort look semi-abandoned, but leave clues that make the enemy think there's a trap.
Except there is no trap.
The leader of the enemy troops will think "Hmmm. This is too easy. Ah yes, this must be an ambush; well, not today." He will then march his troops home, and your fort will survive despite having no chance in hell if there were an engagement.
It's a total bluff meant to be used only when there are no other options. It's easy to see how desperate and ineffective it is because there aren't many accounts of it working in real life. In fact, there are none.
Cocky and stupid, or clever and effective? It depends I suppose
When buying a new or used car, all the websites will tell you, haggling over price only ever works if you're actually willing to walk away. In short, the threat must be real occasionally if you're going to bluff.
This is true with the Empty Fort Strategy. The enemy must think, probably from past altercations, that you're smart enough and armed well enough to spring a trap.
Obviously, the most we know about bluffing comes from card games like Texas Hold 'em poker. In this game, like most poker games, there is a hand of cards delt to every player, then some sort of variable change like community cards or card exchanges, and then a showdown to see who has the best hand.
Between the initial deal and the showdown, players must call an opponent's bet, raise a bet to more than an opponent, or check (pass turn if there's no previous bet), to see more cards, or fold their hand and surrender any chance at winning the hand.
The skill of poker comes by way of betting. How big is a bet? What cards or variables do you know? What do you think your opponent is holding based on the variable cards or based on their bet?
The only time bluffing really works is by telling an elaborate story. If you're lying about the situation, you must use your variables to make it look like the lie is true or that the lie might not be true, but there's a trap a la reverse psychology.
Either way, bluffing is a part of winning in poker, but it isn't a part of winning in warfare. It's either desperate or it's cocky. But, I'm just a dude, WTF do I know?
Comments