Favorite General in History

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Killer344]

I'd rather avoid the word "cool" when you are talking about any kind of war tbh.

[Malevolence]

So, what, you'd prefer that your nation's leader NOT be involved in conflicts? That'd definitely be UNcool if that were the case, so I don't see why the opposite can't be true

[brn4meplz]

When i hear people refer to armed conflict in that way i always think of Advance wars for the Gameboy/DS at the end of each fight the two characters trade useless banter, Like "Arghh well fought I enjoyed the test of wills. I was only delayed slightly. Until we meet again" and my reaction is Dude wtf those are peoples lives your fucking with.

[minehold]

LOL the best general of all time is Sun Tzu, the guy who  wrote The Art of War and pretty much raped his enemies!

[3rdCondor]

So, what, you'd prefer that your nation's leader NOT be involved in conflicts? That'd definitely be UNcool if that were the case, so I don't see why the opposite can't be true

I didn't say that. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me. I DO like for national leaders to be involved in conflicts, but very few leaders are actual tacticians. The President of the United States needs to make key decisions in any conflict, but the generals are the ones maneuvering the troops. Not every president knows how to move armor on the battlefield, but every president needs to give the order.

I'm simply honoring those tacticians who are making the decisive maneuvers in battle. I'm saying that I don't really appreciate it when people always give credit to the president when the generals were the ones minimizing the casualties and maximizing success. Sure the president can order missile strikes, but that doesn't make every president an amazing general. After all they aren't generals, they're commander in chief, which means that they are decision makers and not battlefield tacticians (even though they have the authority).

[TheWindCriesMary]

So, what, you'd prefer that your nation's leader NOT be involved in conflicts? That'd definitely be UNcool if that were the case, so I don't see why the opposite can't be true

I didn't say that. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me. I DO like for national leaders to be involved in conflicts, but very few leaders are actual tacticians. The President of the United States needs to make key decisions in any conflict, but the generals are the ones maneuvering the troops. Not every president knows how to move armor on the battlefield, but every president needs to give the order.

I'm simply honoring those tacticians who are making the decisive maneuvers in battle. I'm saying that I don't really appreciate it when people always give credit to the president when the generals were the ones minimizing the casualties and maximizing success. Sure the president can order missile strikes, but that doesn't make every president an amazing general. After all they aren't generals, they're commander in chief, which means that they are decision makers and not battlefield tacticians (even though they have the authority).

 3rdCondor, you would save yourself alot of concern if you stopped arguing with the scarecrows your creating.

  For the last time, the whole topic of Presidents being commanders in cheifs was brought up as an ancillary comparitive to show why Hitler was not a general whereas Napoleon most certainly was. One or two people claimed Hitler and Napoleon were very similar, and I said this was wholly inaccurate because Napoleon was a general intricately involved on specific battlefields and personally managing his army's strategy, movements, and up-to-the-minute commands whereas Hitler, much like a US President, was more of a macro co-ordinator from afar. You misinterpreted this post by glossing over that critical distinction, and concluding that "US presidents" were being "brought in" as on par, or similar to generals. Understanding that initial confusion, I clarified it in my next post, only to find now that it appears you didn't really read that either because your still operating under the assumption that the very falsity I argued against is somehow the one I've been arguing for.

 I'll give you the first misinterpretation, but continuing it after repeated explanations as to why it is one is just frustrating to behold. After one such explanation from me (which I felt pretty unneccesary to begin with seeing as how I could have just asked you to actually read the post in question and that would have sufficed to clear up the confusion) you even started with "yeah I think I understand your argument. I just don't know if id want to see people list off presidents for best general." It was like being stuck in an episode from the twilight zone. Endless loop in itunes.

 So for the love of god... just actually read the posts being made instead of just picking one or two words (in this case, US President & general) and deciding "this is a thread about good generals, so if these words are both in a post the author must be saying...". In this particular case, it would save you the trouble of arguing against something that is actually exactly the same as what your arguing without you realizing it.

 -Wind

[Heartmann]

I Must say this is a truly fascinating read, and its great to see so many well put posts, Some mad me more irritated and others inspired. One thread discussed the fact that Napoleon did or did not meet a type of guerrilla warfare in Russia, but to be honest that is really not true, i did see a post later also stating this but i want to stress this further that the Cossack element was deeply feared and hated by the French army, in the sense that they never stood and fought they took opportunity, they where senselessly violent and ruthless. They were as Shakespeare puts it "let loose the hounds of war", they but they made a point of running away and taunting the French, and every time the had the chance slaughter as many as possible and then looting their bodies.

This fear component and of course the cold and the fact that napoleon made his army feed of the ground they where invading was the downfall of the Russian invasion in my point of view.

Von Clausewitz i have seen named but not discussed at all, which i find most upsetting due to the fact that he was the reason that the Prussian and eventually Austrian armies reformation into some of the lethal forces of later post modern times. Thou I’m basing this statement out of reading, I abit shamefully admit only reading one book, but it is however a very good and analytic read, Its called the culture of War, by John Keegan, and a strongly recommend it if you guys are interested in the clash between war/leaders and the society.

Further more i would like to point of the greatness of Karl the 12th of Sweden, the “Warrior King” who so far is the only one to take and hold Moscow! (even thou they lost it later but still!)

Further more Alexander the Great is a name at least worth mentioning when bringing up hallowed names like Napoleon, Wellington, Rommel etc.

But one General in my mind stands out amongst the rest is Machiavelli

If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.

[Malevolence]

So, what, you'd prefer that your nation's leader NOT be involved in conflicts? That'd definitely be UNcool if that were the case, so I don't see why the opposite can't be true

I didn't say that. I'm sorry that you misunderstood me. I DO like for national leaders to be involved in conflicts, but very few leaders are actual tacticians. The President of the United States needs to make key decisions in any conflict, but the generals are the ones maneuvering the troops. Not every president knows how to move armor on the battlefield, but every president needs to give the order.

I'm simply honoring those tacticians who are making the decisive maneuvers in battle. I'm saying that I don't really appreciate it when people always give credit to the president when the generals were the ones minimizing the casualties and maximizing success. Sure the president can order missile strikes, but that doesn't make every president an amazing general. After all they aren't generals, they're commander in chief, which means that they are decision makers and not battlefield tacticians (even though they have the authority).

Was talking to killer :p