The book of Sunzu ("The Art Of War") states that you should never attack upland. But in history, uplands fall faster than anything. The English conquered the Scottish Highlands, the Franks conquered the mountains of Burgundy, the Hungarians conquered the Carpathians, and before all this the Romans conquered the Alps ... . From the formal strategic point of view, fighting upland should be always harder. And fighting upland lost the decisive battle of Gettysburg for the Confederates. But what is there that in history the uplands always get eventually subdued? From the military point of view, is it true that uplands should always be a short term advantage only? What would you do if your job was to start from a low flatland and conquer and hold a mountain range / upland?
It isnt because of the terrain. If you throw enough men at it you can conquer anything, uphill you just have to throw more men. For example Fox Hill at Toktong Pass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Barber 220 men under defend a pass from 1,000s of chinese. If you control the hill, you control all the land below.
Look at the fertile crescent, lowlands of France, and steppes of Asia. Through the course of history these places have been fought over more than any mountain or highland.
Probably because if they get beseiged the defenders run out of food and ammo and can't be resupplied and then have to surrender.
