|
On September 06 2011 08:55 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology. Afraid not. Germany lost because they made utterly stupid decisions that caused them to be outmatched in money, army size, and (arguably not) technology.
One of the basic concepts of large scale military fighting is that you do not fight wars on two fronts. If one front folds, you can not reinforce for fear of losing your second front.
Hitler decided to attack Russia. The guile of the Russian military > German warfare.
For all the credit the English/American generals get for winning that war, the true cause for the downfall of the Third Reich was
a. Hitler's insistence to fight on two fronts, making it impossible for him to truly reenforce his army in the west (or in the east)
b. Hitler's use of his supply trains to herd jews to Auschwitz rather than transport necessary military equipment and supplies to his soldiers.
That alone addressed the page 1 post of Hitler, who for all the atrocities he caused, was a tremendous political figure, and a truly terrible head of military.
My vote goes to Rommel or Napoleon.
|
On September 06 2011 21:39 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Yi Soon Shin. Greatest Naval tactician in history. His self taught, in less than 6 months, tactics are still studied seriously in US Naval academies. Every Battle a victory, every battle an overwhelming victory.
When you're outnumbered 100 - 1, all you need to do is have some speshul taktiks to rout the enemy!
Wasn't worse case scenario more around 25-1. Still pretty unique feat.
|
On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable.
Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century.
|
On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants.
Hmm, you grossly underestimate Chinese armies and their fighting abilities.
It's kinda pointless to make a point about which culture had the strongest military as the Ancient cultures develop ways of warfare according to terrain and resources available to them.
Chinese infantry and cavalry formations would be absolutely slaughtered facing a heavy armored European opponent of similar size but no such opponent existed in Asia thus a comparison is not logical. The closest we get is probably a Japanese samurai which on the two occasions where they did met each other in battle, Tang and Ming, both time Chinese armies won battles and the war despite being outnumbered on both occasions. I'm not saying that Chinese armies are superior because they are not and it's difficult to quantify an armies's strength or military capability with out taking everything else into account.
As for your previous posts about China being conquered. Only two times had Chinese heartland being subdued entirely, and the fall of Ming was more due to their inabilities and Manchu's decisiveness.
Even the Song, regarded by most people as a soft dynasty, won majority of battles against the northmen but they faced the problem of foot armies. When they lose and lose they will as no armies can win all the time, they can't retreat as the northmen fielded more horses and cut them down and being an agriculture society they just can't produce enough horses and have enough trained mounted troops.
Even during the height of Mongol power, Southern Song dynasty resisted for 50 years before their last Emperor died on the sea. Now list one country/nation/empire that fought Mongols resisted that long.
|
|
|
On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents.
Well first of all he became supreme commander of the military sheerly by chance, he didn't plan that to happen at all, two of the top army commanders became involved in scandals at the same time (one was accused of being gay and the other married a prostitute), in the ensuing crisis Hitler ended up in charge of the military.
He inspired a revolution with words in a country that just plainly didn't want to be a republic and was ripe for some kind of revolution, and even then he was levered into power by corrupt conservatives who naively believed having Hitler in power would work out to their advantage (how wrong they were). His actual consolidation of power involved a lot of intimidation, beatings and imprisonments of political opponents (night of the long knives etc.)
His country didn't really want to go to war but through a series of incrementally larger expansions of Germany's influence (starting with the remilitarization of the Rhineland, then annexing Austria, then the Sudetenland, then the rest of Czechoslovakia), each of which many people feared would bring war with the western powers, he began to believe he was unstoppable and that 'providence' was on his side and the people began to have some faith in him. That is until the invasion of Poland when Britain and France declared war and Hitler himself wasn't very pleased at that point.
He didn't really hold two fronts, he overran Poland, then France, then invaded Russia, made some good progress but the Russians were too numerous and their defences too good (in addition he didn't even allow his troops to prepare for winter warfare since he believed he would conquer the SU before winter began). Up to this point he was only really fighting on one front at a time, with the invasion of France on D-Day he was fighting on two fronts and losing badly on both and his fate was sealed.
Japan was already fighting years before WW2 even started and were already planning to attack the US due to the oil embargo. Italy was a fascist nation before Germany and already had plans or 'the new Roman Empire'.
His bombing raids may have been more precise but the RAF and USAAF leveled cities far more effectively. Regardless it was Goring that ran the Luftwaffe.
His strategy was not brilliant at all, if he had sat back and let his generals run the war then they would have had a much higher chance of winning
On September 06 2011 03:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology. I would agree with the guy you quoted. Hitler was a good leader. He knew how to get things done, knew how to make some crazy shit work in one of the most desperate times Germany had every seen, but he was a horrible General. I would also say that you can attribute Germany's loss of WWII almost solely to his terrible military decision-making. He easily had one of the greatest generals of all time under him (Rommel), but he himself was just bad when it came to controlling a military.
Again, Hitler was not a good leader, he was fucking insane. As I stated in a previous post the successful economic policies were not created or implemented by him. His focus on rearmanent prompted Germany to get involved in the Spanish civil war and to take over Austria and Czechoslovakia sooner than even Hitler originally planned and was leading to nothing but total war and destruction, something that the average German wasn't conciously signing up for when voting for the NSDAP. The wave of anti-jewish violence that he started began to distress so many people and to hurt the economy so badly that Hitler himself had to tell the Nazi thugs to calm down.
Sure he was touted as a hero when he took over Austria and Czechoslovakia without any consequences, and when he successfully invaded France, but the German people soon became disilussioned with him when they realized where this mad man was taking them.
|
Alexander the muthafuckin Great?
|
|
|
On September 06 2011 22:52 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Hmm, you grossly underestimate Chinese armies and their fighting abilities. It's kinda pointless to make a point about which culture had the strongest military as the Ancient cultures develop ways of warfare according to terrain and resources available to them. Chinese infantry and cavalry formations would be absolutely slaughtered facing a heavy armored European opponent of similar size but no such opponent existed in Asia thus a comparison is not logical. The closest we get is probably a Japanese samurai which on the two occasions where they did met each other in battle, Tang and Ming, both time Chinese armies won battles and the war despite being outnumbered on both occasions. I'm not saying that Chinese armies are superior because they are not and it's difficult to quantify an armies's strength or military capability with out taking everything else into account. As for your previous posts about China being conquered. Only two times had Chinese heartland being subdued entirely, and the fall of Ming was more due to their inabilities and Manchu's decisiveness. Even the Song, regarded by most people as a soft dynasty, won majority of battles against the northmen but they faced the problem of foot armies. When they lose and lose they will as no armies can win all the time, they can't retreat as the northmen fielded more horses and cut them down and being an agriculture society they just can't produce enough horses and have enough trained mounted troops. Even during the height of Mongol power, Southern Song dynasty resisted for 50 years before their last Emperor died on the sea. Now list one country/nation/empire that fought Mongols resisted that long.
Who could outnumber Tang and especially Ming with their huge populations?
It is true that Song resisted over 30 something years. But we are talking about military supremacy and i dont see any supremacy of Chinese army. By definition, country with vast population, rich economy and good government institutions must be dominating the immediate neighbors at least. Chinese may have dominated politically or economically but not through military supremacy or warfare. Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare.
|
sun tzu. all subsequent generals are posers
|
I read a book about field generals by a Swedish historian.
Basically his point was that most of the tactics was made up on the fly, and whilst in battle, none had control over anything. People went berserk and did their thing.
There was a famous quote from one of the famous generals around the 17th century (can't remember the name for the life of me) but it went something like this; a soldier walks up to him and asks him why he's just sitting on his horse looking on the horison during battle and not help the battle. He answeres that that's what he's doing.
Basically a military leader was a person who could make his troops fight to the max.
Armies (atleast in Europe) were basically locusts that went around with thousands of people with their wives and everything and just went wherever they could, as everything food wise was basically gone behind them.
That's one of the prime reasons behind the Swedish conquests in Europe during the 30 year war.
|
On September 06 2011 23:29 jtrex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 22:52 haduken wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Hmm, you grossly underestimate Chinese armies and their fighting abilities. It's kinda pointless to make a point about which culture had the strongest military as the Ancient cultures develop ways of warfare according to terrain and resources available to them. Chinese infantry and cavalry formations would be absolutely slaughtered facing a heavy armored European opponent of similar size but no such opponent existed in Asia thus a comparison is not logical. The closest we get is probably a Japanese samurai which on the two occasions where they did met each other in battle, Tang and Ming, both time Chinese armies won battles and the war despite being outnumbered on both occasions. I'm not saying that Chinese armies are superior because they are not and it's difficult to quantify an armies's strength or military capability with out taking everything else into account. As for your previous posts about China being conquered. Only two times had Chinese heartland being subdued entirely, and the fall of Ming was more due to their inabilities and Manchu's decisiveness. Even the Song, regarded by most people as a soft dynasty, won majority of battles against the northmen but they faced the problem of foot armies. When they lose and lose they will as no armies can win all the time, they can't retreat as the northmen fielded more horses and cut them down and being an agriculture society they just can't produce enough horses and have enough trained mounted troops. Even during the height of Mongol power, Southern Song dynasty resisted for 50 years before their last Emperor died on the sea. Now list one country/nation/empire that fought Mongols resisted that long. Who could outnumber Tang and especially Ming with their huge populations? It is true that Song resisted over 30 something years. But we are talking about military supremacy and i dont see any supremacy of Chinese army. By definition, country with vast population, rich economy and good government institutions must be dominating the immediate neighbors at least. Chinese may have dominated politically or economically but not through military supremacy or warfare. Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare.
Where is your argument? How did they NOT dominate? Everyone except the northern barbarians was subdued, Vietnam was a conquered country for almost a millennium before regaining their independence, same goes for Korea, hell Tang effectively destroyed Korean's power and influence outside of the peninsula and cut off the Manchuria from the Korea ever since. Everyone else was either too far/remote or not worth while to conquer. Xiongnu was conquered, half assimilated into Han, the rest went off to Europe and if history is allowed to guess, they went on to terrorize Europe (I don't think this is proven). Jurchens, Tartars, varies other nomad tribes was beaten and enslaved for centuries before they grew strong. If it wasn't for the dreaded terrains and cold, they would have being killed or being assimilated long ago.
Japan was a remote backwater that no body cared and the times they expand to mainland both times were shutdown by Chinese intervention with a much smaller army. Imjin war 150K Japanese and later another 150Kish army and still can not make a break through versus a measly 60K Ming army.
You seemed to have this strange idea that Ancient Chinese armies only used numbers to win battles...
The fact that the Northmen continued wasn't because China didn't win a war, it was because the vast wasteland beyond that made it extremely easy to hide and made it extremely expensive to venture forth. If you read any of the histories of Chinese military expeditions during the peaks of Chinese power it wasn't that they lost in battle but lost because just couldn't find an enemy! Ming/Tang/Han sent their troops and the northmen fleed and not dared to face them in open battle.
|
On September 06 2011 23:31 Wire wrote:
sun tzu. all subsequent generals are posers
He wrote a book sure, but where is the list of battles that he won?
|
How come so few people, aka like no one, mentions Helmeth Karl Von Moltke the Elder?
|
Erich von Manstein
![[image loading]](http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9760/image2mo.jpg)
Why ? Well.. he was the best general, in the best army. In the biggest war ever to date.
|
On September 06 2011 16:42 Adaptation wrote:Surprised this thread still going. Iv'e been revising my top 100 and i still got loads to do. Here we go... NOTE: I DO NOT INCLUDE ADMIRALS. THEY ARE GOING TO BE JUDGED IN THEIR OWN CATEGORY. MY current top 100(still very much underwork) + Show Spoiler +1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227
2 Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC
3 Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC
4 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821
5 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800
6 Hán Xìn 196 BC
7 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642
8 Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC
9 Timur 1336 1405
10 Jan Žižka 1370 1424
11 Belisarius 505 565
12 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722
13 Subotai 1176 1248
14 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632
15 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC
16 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852
18 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736
19 Selim I 1470 1520
20 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680
21 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750
22 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468
23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504
24 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786
25 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC
26 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675
27 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC
28 Robert Clive 1725 1774
29 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973
30 Nadir Shah 1688 1747
31 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC
32 Heraclius 575 641
33 Gonzalo de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) 1453 1515
34 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891
35 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625
36 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954
37 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863
38 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870
39 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé 1621 1686
40 Tiglath-Pileser III 727 BC
41 Thutmose III 1540 BC
42 Tran Hung dao 1228 1300
43 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598
44 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC 78 BC
45 Yue Fei 1103 1142
46 Babur 1483 1530
Shapur I 272
47 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823
48 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456
49 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) 1545 1592
50 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741
51 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964
52 Simeon I the Great 864 927
53 Hamilcar Barca 270 BC 228 BC
54 Nurhaci 1558 1626
55 Winfield Scott 1786 1866
56 Charles XII 1682 1718
57 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582
58 Shivaji Bhosle 1627 1680
59 Francesco I Sforza 1401 1466
60 Stanislaw Koniecpolski 1590 1646
61 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734
62 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme 1654 1712
63 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974
64 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275
65 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC
66 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696
67 Alp Arslan 1029 1072
68 Constantine I the Great 272 337
69 Murad IV 1612 1640
70 Baibars 1223 1277
71 'Amr ibn al-'As 583 664
72 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Li ShìMín) 599 649
73 Sargon of Akkad
74 Suleiman I 1494 1566
75 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828
76 Charles Martel 688 741
77 François de Montmorency-Bouteville 1628 1695
78 Aleksandr Vasilevsky 1895 1977
79 Jebe 1225
80 Rommel 1891 1944
81 Lautaro (toqui) 1557
82 Flavius Stilicho 359 408
83 André Masséna 1758 1817
84 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030
85 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885
86 Carl Gustav Mannerheim 1867 1951
87 Uqba ibn Nafi 622 683
88 Muhammad of Ghor 1162 1206
89 Gazi Evrenos 1417
90 Robert the Bruce 1274 1329
91 Mustafa Kemal 1881 1938
92 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634
93 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573
94 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650
95 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812
96 Ranjit Singh 1780 1839
97 Samudragupta 335 380
98 Michael the Brave 1558 1601
99 Ahmad Shah Durrani 1723 1773
100 Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby 1861 1936 The top 30 1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227 2 Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC 3 Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC 4 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821 5 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800 6 Hán Xìn 196 BC 7 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642 8 Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC 9 Timur 1336 1405 10 Jan Žižka 1370 1424 11 Belisarius 505 565 12 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722 13 Subotai 1176 1248 14 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632 15 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC 16 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852 18 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736 19 Selim I 1470 1520 20 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 21 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750 22 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468 23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504 24 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786 25 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC 26 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675 27 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC 28 Robert Clive 1725 1774 29 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 30 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 Some thoughts + Show Spoiler +
1.Genghis Khan takes no.1 and the reasons as i previously stated in this thread are simple - he made the largest empire in the world, fought like no other, his army's fought samurai's in japan and knights in Poland. He started from scratch(his father was a tribe leader at best), and proceeded to steamroll the world.
2. Alexander is always a bit tough, i always disliked the fact that his soldiers ''rebelled'' in India, but that can be excused. Another factor why he isn't no.1 is the fact that he did not face macedonian phalanx very much, except in small occasional rebellions. Khan faced cavalry just like his many times.
3. Caesar seems to have gotten a bad rap over the last century, i still don't get why - he fought every kind of troop possible in numerical disadvantage(though not as big as he claims) and won, only having two small tactical defeats which he bounced back easily. The case against him is always ''he ended the republic, made civil war''. This is a tough point to argue when talking of ''best general''. Politics like that tend to overshadow caesar's conquest
4. Napoleon could be higher, but his campaign of Spain is to me the big thing. Russia is not even that bad, he got bad weather and it screwed him. But the spanish ulcer that he never finished to me is a big no-no. He deserves recognition still for how he controlled ridiculously big army's, much bigger then the three above.
All i know for sure is that the top 4 are very much ahead of the rest; at least with the historical sources we have. It is possible that some leaders lower may have been as great, but sources are lacking(Han Xin and Chandragupta Maurya come to mind as two guys who unified huge parts of territory.)
Other points
- Who is Han Xin? Check out the wiki page at least. Pretty much the reason china got the han dynasty.
- Why is Frederick II so low? Getting into war vs sweden(north), austria(south),russia(east),france(west) just doesn't seem smart. Yes he won 3 major battles, but in the end destroyed a large part of his country&population for 0 territorial gain.
- ZOMG!! where ARE THE WW2 GUYS!!. Calm down. The ww2 guys are VERY hard to judge because they had constraints like no others. Logistics and politics played a huge role. Rommel made too many mistakes in the Tunis campaign, Zhukov didn't have very much success in 1941, Patton did well but with his overwhelming advantage he should have done even better.
- The US civil war guys? Stonewall makes it between 30-40, lee a little more down. Lee in my mind made a mistake at Antietam(we can blame Gettysburg on jeb stuart).
- Hitler, Eisenhower, Stalin, Augustus? Those guys don't fit the general type. They were important, they just don't fit here.
- Euro-centrism is blatant in my list. Im still going over Asian generals thoroughly and im finding new guys here and there. Just to have Han Xin at 6 for me is quite something. I think emperor tang will move up, im studying his campaign's and he's quite impressive.
- Hannibal? Ah yes, why is our favorite alpinist so low? Because 1st he lost 1/3 or his army crossing the alps and he didn't even create much of a surprise effect. Yes im aware how insane Cannae is - it's a great battle, but he still ended up losing the war thoroughly. He ended up losing at zama. Yes im aware he got 0 support from carthage, but he still made some mistakes like believing all of Italy would rally to his cause.
I think we should just wait for Adaptation to finish his studies & list.
As a Dutchman, I have merely one remark and one question:
- Maurice of Nassau should be higher up
- When can we expect the admirals version?
|
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons.
I am absolutely amazed that some people think killing millions of your own citizens is a criteria for a good leader. Anyone can recover any country in extreme deficit by killing off a huge portion of the population, taking their money, and building infrastructure with it.
|
On September 06 2011 22:41 jtrex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable. Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century.
This subject has been discussed extensively in this thread, with multiple sources pointing to Han supremacy over Rome. Please look back to previous pages before further discussion, and unless you can provide new sources/material that shown otherwise we can stop the whole Han vs Rome debacle.
|
|
|
On September 07 2011 00:41 Passion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 16:42 Adaptation wrote:Surprised this thread still going. Iv'e been revising my top 100 and i still got loads to do. Here we go... NOTE: I DO NOT INCLUDE ADMIRALS. THEY ARE GOING TO BE JUDGED IN THEIR OWN CATEGORY. MY current top 100(still very much underwork) + Show Spoiler +1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227
2 Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC
3 Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC
4 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821
5 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800
6 Hán Xìn 196 BC
7 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642
8 Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC
9 Timur 1336 1405
10 Jan Žižka 1370 1424
11 Belisarius 505 565
12 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722
13 Subotai 1176 1248
14 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632
15 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC
16 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852
18 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736
19 Selim I 1470 1520
20 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680
21 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750
22 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468
23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504
24 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786
25 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC
26 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675
27 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC
28 Robert Clive 1725 1774
29 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973
30 Nadir Shah 1688 1747
31 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC
32 Heraclius 575 641
33 Gonzalo de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) 1453 1515
34 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891
35 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625
36 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954
37 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863
38 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870
39 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé 1621 1686
40 Tiglath-Pileser III 727 BC
41 Thutmose III 1540 BC
42 Tran Hung dao 1228 1300
43 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598
44 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC 78 BC
45 Yue Fei 1103 1142
46 Babur 1483 1530
Shapur I 272
47 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823
48 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456
49 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) 1545 1592
50 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741
51 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964
52 Simeon I the Great 864 927
53 Hamilcar Barca 270 BC 228 BC
54 Nurhaci 1558 1626
55 Winfield Scott 1786 1866
56 Charles XII 1682 1718
57 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582
58 Shivaji Bhosle 1627 1680
59 Francesco I Sforza 1401 1466
60 Stanislaw Koniecpolski 1590 1646
61 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734
62 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme 1654 1712
63 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974
64 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275
65 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC
66 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696
67 Alp Arslan 1029 1072
68 Constantine I the Great 272 337
69 Murad IV 1612 1640
70 Baibars 1223 1277
71 'Amr ibn al-'As 583 664
72 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Li ShìMín) 599 649
73 Sargon of Akkad
74 Suleiman I 1494 1566
75 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828
76 Charles Martel 688 741
77 François de Montmorency-Bouteville 1628 1695
78 Aleksandr Vasilevsky 1895 1977
79 Jebe 1225
80 Rommel 1891 1944
81 Lautaro (toqui) 1557
82 Flavius Stilicho 359 408
83 André Masséna 1758 1817
84 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030
85 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885
86 Carl Gustav Mannerheim 1867 1951
87 Uqba ibn Nafi 622 683
88 Muhammad of Ghor 1162 1206
89 Gazi Evrenos 1417
90 Robert the Bruce 1274 1329
91 Mustafa Kemal 1881 1938
92 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634
93 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573
94 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650
95 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812
96 Ranjit Singh 1780 1839
97 Samudragupta 335 380
98 Michael the Brave 1558 1601
99 Ahmad Shah Durrani 1723 1773
100 Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby 1861 1936 The top 30 1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227 2 Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC 3 Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC 4 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821 5 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800 6 Hán Xìn 196 BC 7 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642 8 Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC 9 Timur 1336 1405 10 Jan Žižka 1370 1424 11 Belisarius 505 565 12 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722 13 Subotai 1176 1248 14 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632 15 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC 16 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852 18 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736 19 Selim I 1470 1520 20 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 21 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750 22 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468 23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504 24 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786 25 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC 26 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675 27 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC 28 Robert Clive 1725 1774 29 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 30 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 Some thoughts + Show Spoiler +
1.Genghis Khan takes no.1 and the reasons as i previously stated in this thread are simple - he made the largest empire in the world, fought like no other, his army's fought samurai's in japan and knights in Poland. He started from scratch(his father was a tribe leader at best), and proceeded to steamroll the world.
2. Alexander is always a bit tough, i always disliked the fact that his soldiers ''rebelled'' in India, but that can be excused. Another factor why he isn't no.1 is the fact that he did not face macedonian phalanx very much, except in small occasional rebellions. Khan faced cavalry just like his many times.
3. Caesar seems to have gotten a bad rap over the last century, i still don't get why - he fought every kind of troop possible in numerical disadvantage(though not as big as he claims) and won, only having two small tactical defeats which he bounced back easily. The case against him is always ''he ended the republic, made civil war''. This is a tough point to argue when talking of ''best general''. Politics like that tend to overshadow caesar's conquest
4. Napoleon could be higher, but his campaign of Spain is to me the big thing. Russia is not even that bad, he got bad weather and it screwed him. But the spanish ulcer that he never finished to me is a big no-no. He deserves recognition still for how he controlled ridiculously big army's, much bigger then the three above.
All i know for sure is that the top 4 are very much ahead of the rest; at least with the historical sources we have. It is possible that some leaders lower may have been as great, but sources are lacking(Han Xin and Chandragupta Maurya come to mind as two guys who unified huge parts of territory.)
Other points
- Who is Han Xin? Check out the wiki page at least. Pretty much the reason china got the han dynasty.
- Why is Frederick II so low? Getting into war vs sweden(north), austria(south),russia(east),france(west) just doesn't seem smart. Yes he won 3 major battles, but in the end destroyed a large part of his country&population for 0 territorial gain.
- ZOMG!! where ARE THE WW2 GUYS!!. Calm down. The ww2 guys are VERY hard to judge because they had constraints like no others. Logistics and politics played a huge role. Rommel made too many mistakes in the Tunis campaign, Zhukov didn't have very much success in 1941, Patton did well but with his overwhelming advantage he should have done even better.
- The US civil war guys? Stonewall makes it between 30-40, lee a little more down. Lee in my mind made a mistake at Antietam(we can blame Gettysburg on jeb stuart).
- Hitler, Eisenhower, Stalin, Augustus? Those guys don't fit the general type. They were important, they just don't fit here.
- Euro-centrism is blatant in my list. Im still going over Asian generals thoroughly and im finding new guys here and there. Just to have Han Xin at 6 for me is quite something. I think emperor tang will move up, im studying his campaign's and he's quite impressive.
- Hannibal? Ah yes, why is our favorite alpinist so low? Because 1st he lost 1/3 or his army crossing the alps and he didn't even create much of a surprise effect. Yes im aware how insane Cannae is - it's a great battle, but he still ended up losing the war thoroughly. He ended up losing at zama. Yes im aware he got 0 support from carthage, but he still made some mistakes like believing all of Italy would rally to his cause.
I think we should just wait for Adaptation to finish his studies & list. As a Dutchman, I have merely one remark and one question: - Maurice of Nassau should be higher up - When can we expect the admirals version?
Admiral is in Alpha phase and won't have a 100 names, probably 30names at best. So far Admirals it would be something like
1.Yi-sun Shin (google him)
2.Horatio Nelson (trafalgar + danemark)
3.Chester B Nimitz (midway + pacific campaign)
4.De Ruyter (raid in the thames + dutch resistance)
5.Sir Andrew Cunningham (tarento + Mediterranean domination)
6.Heihachirö Tögö. (1905 russo-japanese war)
7.Blas de Lezo( underated monster. His resume speaks for itself, google it)
7.William Howard, 1st Baron Howard of Effingham (spanish armada + cadiz)
9.Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa(actium and took care of most pirate fleets in the med)
10. Admiral Donitz (Scapa flow raid + Wolf pack strategy)
This is a rough draft and could use some work. Im also undecided about guys like Jean Bart and Francis Drake, who are halfway admirals/halfway corsairs.
As for Maurice of Nassau, one of the first to use the Pike and Shot(the first being el Grand captain), he might deserve a bump for the ''innovation category''. I need to check out his campaigns more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.oocities.org/imperialchicks/images/thrawn3.jpg)
