On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them.
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me.
Come to think of it, I always wondered why he remained so obscure and unknown compared to the other significant characters in Roman history. His accomplishments easily rank him among one of the greatest people of Rome and definitely one of its greatest generals and military reformers.
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them.
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me.
Great fires don't spark from nothing. Let's not get into the argument about "conditions". You can argue that Nelson is overrated because the british fleet was more experienced and better trained. You can argue that Yi Sun-sin didn't achieve anything because he was in command of technology far ahead of his opponents. You can even argue that Genghis Khan was in many ways unfairly advantaged over his opponents. It's just the way things are. Some people rise to greatness from a pedestal, others rise anyway. Any pedestal is so insignificant in comparison to the achievements of the men we are talking about that I would totally disregard the whole notion of there being a pedestal.
Alexander the Great owed his achievements to his father? Please..
It's a nice footnote that you came from nothingness, but that overwhelmingly denotes accident. Unless you believe in things like divine fate, or other nonsense like that.
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them.
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me.
Great fires don't spark from nothing. Let's not get into the argument about "conditions". You can argue that Nelson is overrated because the british fleet was more experienced and better trained. You can argue that Yi Sun-sin didn't achieve anything because he was in command of technology far ahead of his opponents. You can even argue that Genghis Khan was in many ways unfairly advantaged over his opponents. It's just the way things are. Some people rise to greatness from a pedestal, others rise anyway. Any pedestal is so insignificant in comparison to the achievements of the men we are talking about that I would totally disregard the whole notion of there being a pedestal.
Alexander the Great owed his achievements to his father? Please..
It's a nice footnote that you came from nothingness, but that overwhelmingly denotes accident. Unless you believe in things like divine fate, or other nonsense like that.
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them.
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me.
Great fires don't spark from nothing. Let's not get into the argument about "conditions". You can argue that Nelson is overrated because the british fleet was more experienced and better trained. You can argue that Yi Sun-sin didn't achieve anything because he was in command of technology far ahead of his opponents. You can even argue that Genghis Khan was in many ways unfairly advantaged over his opponents. It's just the way things are. Some people rise to greatness from a pedestal, others rise anyway. Any pedestal is so insignificant in comparison to the achievements of the men we are talking about that I would totally disregard the whole notion of there being a pedestal.
Alexander the Great owed his achievements to his father? Please..
It's a nice footnote that you came from nothingness, but that overwhelmingly denotes accident. Unless you believe in things like divine fate, or other nonsense like that.
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them.
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me.
Great fires don't spark from nothing. Let's not get into the argument about "conditions". You can argue that Nelson is overrated because the british fleet was more experienced and better trained. You can argue that Yi Sun-sin didn't achieve anything because he was in command of technology far ahead of his opponents. You can even argue that Genghis Khan was in many ways unfairly advantaged over his opponents. It's just the way things are. Some people rise to greatness from a pedestal, others rise anyway. Any pedestal is so insignificant in comparison to the achievements of the men we are talking about that I would totally disregard the whole notion of there being a pedestal.
Alexander the Great owed his achievements to his father? Please..
It's a nice footnote that you came from nothingness, but that overwhelmingly denotes accident. Unless you believe in things like divine fate, or other nonsense like that.
...Genghis Khan was unfairly advantaged? What?
mongol war tactics were made to crush standard warfare at the time if you want to call that "unfair advantage". Well imo the mongols just did the best they could with their army.
Horseman armies with traditional tactics that worked well. Enemies that didn't have the army units to combat those tactics or didn't know how to. Granted, not at all a good example, as much of his success was in chief due to innovations he himself made. Might want to just disregard that, I just threw it in there.
When the mongol raids reached europe, the knights who fought them lost on the battlefield due to the feigned retreat tactic. One may argue that they got off easy essentially by a historical accident. Not a major thing, but that was what I was thinking when I put it up.
I think Hitler even though the horrors he did was general that lead his army to victory. In WW1 he lead a char division which never got defeated. He invented the Blitzkrieg the association of planes, tanks and infantry. The strategy used in WW2 was to break the defense line in 1 point with at first the bombers then the tanks then the infantry which cleaned the whole line of defense by coming from behind. But he had bad decision making, trying to attack URSS at the time was not of the greatest idea
On February 23 2012 23:01 Acertos wrote: I think Hitler even though the horrors he did was general that lead his army to victory. In WW1 he lead a char division which never got defeated. He invented the Blitzkrieg the association of planes, tanks and infantry. The strategy used in WW2 was to break the defense line in 1 point with at first the bombers then the tanks then the infantry which cleaned the whole line of defense by coming from behind. But he had bad decision making, trying to attack URSS at the time was not of the greatest idea
that is like so wrong in every aspect.
In WW1 Hitler was some lowly Private he didnt command anyone. He did not invent the Blitzkrieg either in fact he had no say in the army tactics until like 1941.
On February 23 2012 23:01 Acertos wrote: I think Hitler even though the horrors he did was general that lead his army to victory. In WW1 he lead a char division which never got defeated. He invented the Blitzkrieg the association of planes, tanks and infantry. The strategy used in WW2 was to break the defense line in 1 point with at first the bombers then the tanks then the infantry which cleaned the whole line of defense by coming from behind. But he had bad decision making, trying to attack URSS at the time was not of the greatest idea
On February 23 2012 22:39 Kontys wrote: Horseman armies with traditional tactics that worked well. Enemies that didn't have the army units to combat those tactics or didn't know how to. Granted, not at all a good example, as much of his success was in chief due to innovations he himself made. Might want to just disregard that, I just threw it in there.
When the mongol raids reached europe, the knights who fought them lost on the battlefield due to the feigned retreat tactic. One may argue that they got off easy essentially by a historical accident. Not a major thing, but that was what I was thinking when I put it up.
Oh that makes total sense! Especially considering Genghis Khan didn't lead any campaigns against W. European armies. Let's see who Genghis Khan actually fought...
Western Xia - A Turko-Mongol people who fought in exactly the same manner as Genghis Khan. Jin Dynasty - Manchurian people... same as above. Kara-Khitan - Turko-Mongol people... same as above. Khwarezmian Empire - A Persian Turko-Mongol people... same as above. Cumin-Kipchaks - A Turkic people... same as above.
Exactly which one of these enemies are you talking about when you say Genghis' "enemies" didn't have the army units to combat those tactics or didn't know how to?
Pretty much the ENTIRETY of Genghis Khan's enemies were his own people or related tribes who fought with the exact same sort of tactics and organization that the Mongols did. Grew up in a similar culture and lifestyle with similar armament. This isn't even taking into account the entire first half of Genghis Khan's career was spent on the Mongolian steppe fighting the Naimans, Merkits, Tanguts, Tatars etc.
Subotai, one of the 4 war dogs of the great Genghis Khan.
You can´t really argue about the greatness of Subotai i mean hes the general to have conquered/overran more territory in the history of mankind and thats not an easy feat whit how freaking blood thirsty humanity is.
Subotai, one of the 4 war dogs of the great Genghis Khan.
You can´t really argue about the greatness of Subotai i mean hes the general to have conquered/overran more territory in the history of mankind and thats not an easy feat whit how freaking blood thirsty humanity is.
he's also the name of conan the barbarian's sidekick in conan the barbarian. the good one, not the kinda crappy newer one.
Conan: What gods do you pray to? Subotai: I pray to the four winds... and you? Conan: To Crom... but I seldom pray to him, he doesn't listen. Subotai: What good is he then? Ah, it's just as I've always said. Conan: He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of steel?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain! Subotai: Ah, my god is greater. Conan: Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain. Subotai: My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him.
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them.
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me.
Great fires don't spark from nothing. Let's not get into the argument about "conditions". You can argue that Nelson is overrated because the british fleet was more experienced and better trained. You can argue that Yi Sun-sin didn't achieve anything because he was in command of technology far ahead of his opponents. You can even argue that Genghis Khan was in many ways unfairly advantaged over his opponents. It's just the way things are. Some people rise to greatness from a pedestal, others rise anyway. Any pedestal is so insignificant in comparison to the achievements of the men we are talking about that I would totally disregard the whole notion of there being a pedestal.
Alexander the Great owed his achievements to his father? Please..
It's a nice footnote that you came from nothingness, but that overwhelmingly denotes accident. Unless you believe in things like divine fate, or other nonsense like that.
...Genghis Khan was unfairly advantaged? What?
Unfair advantage of having a genetically and culturally select super race of horse riding archers?
In the words of my elder cousin, the Mongols were speed upgraded Vultures while the rest of the world's standing armies were unupgraded Zealots... SURE, the Zealots would win in a straight up fight, but the Vultures never need to fight straight up!
Yi Soon Shin's achievements as a ground general were also quite insane... Oh, they have guns? It's fine, we'll just charge them anyways then just kill them while they reload....
More importantly, Yi Soon Shin had no training and little to no funding for his navy... even just 80 years ago anyone who set foot on a non-leisure boat in Korea was considered of the lowest of lower classes... His conscientiousness in training his army and understanding naval strategy, that's still taught in premier US Naval academies, in less than a few months is what sets him apart.
I generally agree with everything else Contys said though
On February 23 2012 23:01 Acertos wrote: I think Hitler even though the horrors he did was general that lead his army to victory. In WW1 he lead a char division which never got defeated. He invented the Blitzkrieg the association of planes, tanks and infantry. The strategy used in WW2 was to break the defense line in 1 point with at first the bombers then the tanks then the infantry which cleaned the whole line of defense by coming from behind. But he had bad decision making, trying to attack URSS at the time was not of the greatest idea
What? This has to be trolling, Hitler made no military advancements, only the policy making to let it happen. WW1, his ENTIRE DIVISION GOT KILLED, but him. So, I would say that means they got defeated. Or maybe he killed them all. Which makes him more a serial killer than a warrior...
The guy held off internal rebellions, and the entire Ottoman Empire for years, at the same time. He also escaped a siege by putting his horse's shoes on backwards, so the Ottoman scouts would think it was someone coming to the castle, rather than leaving the castle.
Also, he was the original inspiration for Dracula.
On February 24 2012 03:50 TehPrime wrote: Yi and his turtle boat armada was way ahead of any japanese fleet at that time, I agree with that.
Turtle ships were beyond any navy on earth at the time... ALSO, there were never more than 6 Turtle ships in existence at one time. They were too expensive for the Korean gov't at the time... the gov't who didn't give a shit about Yi Soon Shin or his navy anyways... It's probably for the best that he died in the last battle of his war, if not they'd have probably executed him for fear of him taking over.
"There is a popular legend that "hooker" as a slang term for a prostitute is derived from his last name[19] because of parties and a lack of military discipline at his headquarters. Some versions of the legend claim that the band of prostitutes that followed his division were derisively referred to as "General Hooker's Army" or "Hooker's Brigade."[20]"
:0) Even though the term was coined prior to his being around, I still like to immagine that he inspired the term.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Subudei.jpg)
