These two sentences appeared in a row: "...inflicting constant, small, debilitating defeats on the North Africans" and "Fabius won no victories." Isn't any defeat of an enemy technically a victory? I've gone ahead and changed it to "won no large-scale victories," but perhaps someone with more knowledge of military history could phrase it more precisely. --LostLeviathan 20:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could Fabian strategy be considered a form of guerilla warfare, or vice-versa? Aristotle2600 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
No, a guerilla war is fought between a regular army and opposing armed elements that are to weak to engage in conventional warfare. A guerilla army lacks the capacity to wage a conventional battle ("lack of ability"), whereas in Fabian strategy both sides are able to fight a conventional battle, but one side decides not to ("lack of will").
I also removed the reference to the war in Russia in WWII. The Red Army never engaged in Fabian strategy, quite the opposite is true. 188.8.131.52 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This entire article is lifted in entirety from "A Handbook of Military Strategy and Tactics" by Michiko Phifer. It should probably be deleted until something worthwhile is included here.Jeriktelorian (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)