Jedi Council Forums - ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**

The Supreme Chancellor would like to graciously thank Gay-LenKenobi for her contributions to this great Empi... er, Republic.

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
darthdrago Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 12/26/07 8:08pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	9) Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, Great Britain Wiki entry Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (c. 1 May 1769 – 14 September 1852), was an Anglo-Irish British Army soldier and statesman, widely considered one of the leading military and political figures of the first half of the nineteenth century. Commissioned an ensign in the British Army, he rose to prominence in the Napoleonic Wars, eventually reaching the rank of field marshal... ...in 1814, after taking the small fortresses of Pamplona and San Sebastián, Wellington invaded France and laid siege to Toulouse, occupied by the French army under Marshal Soult. The siege was brought to an end once news arrived of Napoleon's surrender. Napoleon was later exiled to the island of Elba. Hailed as the conquering hero, Wellington was created Duke of Wellington, a title still held by his descendants. (Since he did not return to England until the Peninsular War was over, he was awarded all his patents of nobility in a unique ceremony lasting a full day.) He was soon appointed ambassador to France, then took Lord Castlereagh's place as First Plenipotentiary to the Congress of Vienna, where he strongly advocated allowing France to keep its place in the European balance of power. On 2 January 1815, the title of his Knighthood of the Bath was converted to Knight Grand Cross upon the expansion of that order. On 26 February 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to France. Regaining control of the country by May, he faced a renewed alliance against him. Wellington left Vienna for what became known as the Waterloo Campaign. He arrived in Belgium to take command of the British-German army and their allied Dutch-Belgians, all stationed alongside the Prussian forces of Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. The French invaded Belgium, defeated the Prussians at Ligny, and fought an indecisive battle at Quatre Bras, compelling Anglo-Allied army to retreat to a ridge on the Brussels road, just south of the small town of Waterloo. Two days later, on 18 June, came the famous Battle of Waterloo. After an all-day fight, with the Anglo-Allies standing firm under French shelling and cavalry charges, the Prussian Army under Blücher arrived, some of them reinforcing the left of Wellington's line and other engaging the French right flank at Plancenoit. The French Imperial Guard was then dramatically repulsed by British volley fire, and Napoleon's army were routed in panic. What You Said: crickets chirping What Drago Says: Wellesley never even entered the running on my list. But I have to respect his placement here. Being one of the men who took down Napoleon for good has to count for something in the greater annals of history. I myself considered Horatio Nelson to have had the greater impact against Napoleon's ambitions, having limited Napoleon's success mostly to land-based campaigns. Still, Wellington had a large role (perhaps the largest) in a battle that not only ended Napoleon's reign, but ended up being the battle that ended one era and ushered in another: a post-war Europe that lasted some five decades without any major conflict. I think it's fair to say Wellington was the "Eisenhower" of his day. [face_unionjack]
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darthdrago Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 12/29/07 2:49pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	8) Attila the Hun, King of the Hunnic Empire Wiki entry Attila (406 – 453), also known as Attila the Hun or the Scourge of God, was King of the Huns from 434 until his death. He was leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Germany to the Ural River and from the Danube River to the Baltic Sea. During his rule he was one of the most fearsome of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires' enemies: he invaded the Balkans twice, he marched through Gaul (modern day France) as far as Orleans before being defeated at the Battle of Chalons; and he drove the western emperor Valentinian III from his capital at Ravenna in 452. He reached Constantinople and Rome but refrained from attacking either city. In much of Western Europe, he is remembered as the epitome of cruelty and rapacity. In contrast, some histories lionize him as a great and noble king, and he plays major roles in three Norse sagas. What Drago Says: Now here was an interesting choice. I wouldn't have expected to see Attila's name crop up anywhere. I'm guessing this is because of the very reason that the Wiki entry mentions at the top of its entry: in Western Civ tradition his name is synonymous with the basic concept of the "barbarian" and "savagery". So in all honesty I suppose I still fall prey to that stereotype that westerners still reflexively think of when they hear his name. Consider that the German soldier was dehumanized as "the Hun" during World War I (though where the anti-German propaganda's 'gorilla' visuals came from, I've no idea). I suppose that, had the nomadic tribes from central Asia had a more sophisticated bureaucracy like the late Romans or classical Chinese, then greater trade & state-to-state links would have been forged, leaving better recorded histories of the Huns and their systems. (My Wiki research didn't really identify the Huns as a literate, written legal code empire. If anyone would like to elaborate, please do.) But Attila's campaigns into Western Europe do coincide with the Western Empire's decaying state. Wiki doesn't state why Attila didn't overrun Rome or Constantinople, so I think it's fair to say that he was shrewder & more complex than the one-sided history books have led us to believe. (Jello, if you have anything worthwhile to add, be my guest. ) 7) Genghis Khan, Ruler of the Mongol Empire Wiki entry Genghis Khan (properly transliterated "Chinggis Khaãan"), ca. 1162–August 18, 1227), born Temujin, was the founder, Khan (ruler) and posthumously declared Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history. Temujin came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of north-east Asia and Central Asia. After founding the Mongol Nation and being proclaimed "Genghis Khan", he pursued an aggressive foreign policy by starting the Mongol invasion of East Asia and Central Asia. During his life, the Mongol Empire eventually occupied most of Asia. Temujin died of unknown causes in 1227 after a campaign to subjugate the Xi Xia and Jin dynasties in China. He was buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in his native Mongolia. His descendants went on to stretch the Mongol Empire across most of Eurasia, conquering all of modern-day China and Mongolia, as well as substantial portions of modern Russia, southern Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. What You Said: He united the Mongol clans (who later went on to form the second largest empire in history) and enlarged his empire greatly. --Loyal Imperial What Drago Says: It's somehow fitting for the two "feared barbarian" leaders to be back-to-back in the voting results. That Genghis molded the Mongols into a near-invincible machine isn't disputed. A few years ago I discovered an essay by historical novelist Cecilia Holland, titled "The Death that Saved Europe". In the essay, Holland speculates that it was blind luck that saved Europe from being overrun by the Mongols. After Genghis' passing in 1227, the empire continued its expansion. Genghis' third son Ogedai (then in control of the empire), passed away in late 1241. Tradition held that the warlords had to return to the Mongol homeland to elect the next Khan, and the new leader opted not to attack Europe--a turning point of history, as Holland states that Mongol scouts were just outside of Vienna at the time of Ogedai's death. So, finding Holland's piece very convincing, I think it's just random luck that most of us on this board are speaking in English instead of an Asiatic- or Turkic-derived tongue instead. Genghis is also one figure who's still debated in terms of his hostility as a leader versus his qualities as a leader. Holland's essay describes total massacres of conquered cities in south Asia, with millions of deaths and cities leveled. Wiki includes a section on the controversy on how Genghis is perceived here.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: EUC/JCC mod touring the Empire Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 12/30/07 11:46pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	Attila was never really interested in overrunning the Roman Empire. In fact, his invasion of Northern Italy (and the burning down of Aquileia) was in response to a spurious claimed he felt he had on the western throne when the Roman Princess Honoria sent him her ring--he interpreted that as a marriage request and felt that it made him a member of the imperial family. -----signature----- Roma Æterna\|SPQR Imperium Sine Fine "Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque" -Ennius, Annales "Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento;hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos" -Virgil, Aeneid
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darthdrago Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 1/2 3:49pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	6) Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, Great Britain Wiki entry Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, KB (29 September 1758 – 21 October 1805) was a British admiral famous for his participation in the Napoleonic Wars, most notably in the Battle of Trafalgar, a decisive British victory in the war, during which he lost his life. Nelson went against the conventional tactics of the time by cutting through the enemy's lines. Nelson was noted for his ability to inspire and bring out the best in his men, to the point that it gained a name: "The Nelson Touch". His actions during these wars meant that before and after his death he was revered like few military figures have been throughout British history. What Drago Says: Nelson looks to me to be the biggest thorn in France/Napoleon's side throughout the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars. Using colloquial vernacular, Nelson holds the title "Master of Napoleon-pwnage" (excluding the Russian winter of course ). The British have a long history of stifling a would-be conqueror's military ambitions on the seas: Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Imperial Germany, Hitler. Nelson looks to me to be the best practitioner of this art. Nelson died after winning the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, a full decade before Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo. Yet he seems to loom much larger over Wellington in the name recognition of who's-who-in-Napoleon-pwnage. (Souderwan, I know you're surfacing out there somewhere. Feel free to chime in. ) 5) General George Washington, United States of America Wiki entry George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was a central, critical figure in the founding of the United States, as well as the nation's first president (1789–1797), after leading the Continental Army to victory over the Kingdom of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). ...He delivered the final blow in 1781, after a French naval victory allowed American and French forces to trap a British army in Virginia. The surrender at Yorktown on October 17, 1781 marked the end of fighting. Though known for his successes in the war and of his life that followed, Washington only won three of the nine battles that he fought. What Drago Says: Normally a .333 winning percentage would be considered unacceptable to most people, but that's when you're presuming the battle's an evenly matched fight, and the American rebellion against Britain was certainly not. I've said it before: Washington's saving grace was his ability to survive and stay on the move. I'm certain that he at times would have loved nothing more than to turn over the burden of leadership to somebody else (and there certainly must have been folks in the Continental Congress who would have wanted him to do just that), but he persevered. We Americans often romanticize our famous leaders, and Washington is known as the "Father of the Country". But I think Washington was incalculably assisted by his officer corps, not to mention the French army & navy. The "help" is often the first group of people to be overlooked when a leader is mythologized, as though the leader in question did it all himself. Most of us don't know who they were (I certainly don't). But it takes a tough, practical, persistent leader to pull together all those talents and make the decisions. Washington fits right in here. Good thing Nelson wasn't around yet to harass the Colonials, hm? The next update will be posted by Special Guest Star, GrandAdmiralJello.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/2 7:42pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	I think both choices here occupy their "bread and butter" positions well. Nelson was brilliant at what he did, but perhaps his overall impact was rather limited. Washington occupies this position based on his military activities, and not his political ones. When one thinks of Washington, it's difficult not to picture him standing on the bow of his ship leading his troops across the Delaware, even if the imagery is symbolic. If I remember the voting tallies, both of these men received a lot of votes, but all stayed within this range. There wasn't a lot of see-sawing with either. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralPelleaon Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/3 11:21am Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion) - Date Edited: 1/3 11:25am (1 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralPelleaon
	Heh, weren't there more French troops at Yorktown than American troops? Seeing as this boards is dominated by Americans, it seems a logical choice. Although I do think the American revolution profited a lot from being on the outer skirts of the Empire, and not even being the most valuable part, pretty much seen as more trouble than it was worth. I suppose all the upheavel elswerhere in the world would've as much counted for their success as their actual military successes, and lets not forget that the actual power of the British lay in their navy, not their army. That is not to say that they didn't do magnificently against a superior fighting force. As for Nelson, I still think he's overrated as far as Trafalgar goes, he was as much helped by the fact that the Spanish were pretty much forced to fight, sheer luck and some incompetence in the French navy command as actual tactics. -----signature----- Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois! Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
The_Loyal_Imperial Title: YAHTZEE Host RPF Winner - Best GM Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 1/3 11:40am Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion) - Date Edited: 1/3 11:43am (2 edits total) Edited By: The_Loyal_Imperial
	I never even thought of putting Washington on the list, but I suppose that's because I'm a foreigner. The rest of the placements look to be what I expected. Rommel and Wellington's placements matched that of my own list, with Attila and Genghis being lower and Nelson higher than my ranking. -----signature----- Attack of the Clones was released May 16, 2002. Star Wars: Republic covered the Clone Wars starting Jan 22, 2003. What's the next big Star Wars project? Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Fall 2008.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MasterEric Registered: Dec '07	Date Posted: 1/5 7:41pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	I'm afraid I did not see this thread in time to vote, though I find the selections interesting. Looking forward to seeing the consensus top 3.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
lorn_zahl Registered: Oct '02	Date Posted: 1/6 6:50pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	1. George S. Patton (US) 2. Dwight Eisenhower (US) 3. Napoleon (France) 4. Erwin Rommel (Germany) 5. Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam) 6. Alexander the Great (Greek) 7. Genghis Khan (Mongolian) 8. Alaric I (Visigoth) 9. Douglas MacArthur (US) 10. David Petraeus (US)
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
IceHawk-181 Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 1/6 9:16pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	Why place Washington on the list? As a military leader his greatest asset was his image, the myth he formed around himself as the modern Cincinattus. He was perhaps a practical leader, with some skillful logistical capabilities and some unconventional tactics gleaned primarily from his militia days, but examined on a purely tactical and strategic level he had subordinates with superior abilities, and was nearly (supposedly) deposed as Commander in Chief after that fact began to make the rounds of the Congress. Just for the fun of it…mostly classical characters would dominate mine… 1. Alexander the Great 2. Cyrus the Great 3. Temujin 4. Philip II of Macedon 5. Themistocles 6. Oda Nobunaga 7. Julius Caesar 8. Alcibiades 9. Leonidas 10. Lysander Technically, Nobunaga and Julius would be interchangeable, as would be Leonidas and Lysander. Interesting consensus choices though. -----signature----- Proof is an interesting phenomena; there is seemingly always an abundance of it when it need not be presented.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralPelleaon Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/7 7:16am Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	Seriously, David Petraeus on 10? This just seems like national posturing, the guy only has had one significant command post up till now that I'm aware of and that's Iraq, and a battle against insurgents, that's not even won yet can hardly be taken into account. Do you have any motivation to place him on this list? -----signature----- Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois! Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: EUC/JCC mod touring the Empire Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 1/7 1:39pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	IV. Alexander the Great, King of Macedon Wiki entry Alexander the Great (Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος,[1][2] Megas Alexandros; July 20, 356 BC – June 10, 323 BC),[3][4][5] also known as Alexander III, was an ancient Greek[6][7][8] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks. Following the unification of the multiple city-states of ancient Greece under the rule of his father, Philip II of Macedon (a labour Alexander had to repeat because the southern Greeks rebelled after Philip's death), Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire, including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria, and Mesopotamia, and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India. What Jello Says: To be honest, I tend to think that the achievements of Alexander the Great are mostly due to luck. That said, he is the first archetypal military genius in the western tradition--greater than all his classical Greek predecessors combined. There is a reason that he came to be regarded as the son of Zeus. A lot of his success is due to the reorganization of the Macedonian military during the reign of his father, Philip II. He was able to successfully subdue some of the Greek city-states, though he was held of from ultimate success in part to the stirring oratory of the Athenian legend Demosthenes. Alexander, however, finished the job. The principle of combined arms was the key to Alexander's success. The Greek phalanx had been the prime instrument of war for the past few centuries, and the Macedonian phalanges were even better. Yet it wasn't the phalanx that proved to be the key; it was the ancient equivalent of pre-Napoleonic warfare, where both sides lined up and kept pushing each other's packed shield wall with their spears until one side gave up. What was so ingenious about Alexander's tactics is that he used his phlanges to pin down the enemy so that a flanking attack from cavalry could devastate their forces. The phalanx was an immobile formation and with all their shields pointing forward, it was just a big giant target for a cavalry charge. Similar, Alexander's talent for spotting weaknesses helped him pinpoint the great political weakness of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. This mighty superpower had threatened the west for centuries, but it was not a unified polity: but a confederation of cities recognizing the suzerainity of the ruling dynasty. As such, Alexander used his strategic foresight to pry away allies from the Persians and get the cities to swear loyalty to him: the satraps (semi-independant governors) would happily shift their allegiance to him and life would go on as normal while at the same time depriving the great empire of badly needed manpower reserves and resources. In the end, Alexander pushed too hard and too far. His men missed their home and his empire was experiencing overstretch. At his death, it was so large that it was spread into several "Successor Kingdoms"-most prominently the Seleucid Empire in the land of the two rivers and the Ptolemaic Empire in the land of Sedge and Bee. His conquests added a layer of Hellenic civility to a formerly barbarous backwater--a veneer that would last until the Arab conquests nearly 900 years later. It also spread many features of the very advanced Persian civilization to the west. III. Gaius Julius Cæsar (Divus Julius), Dictator of the Roman Republic Wiki entry Gaius Julius Caesar [1] (pronounced [ˈgaːius ˈjuːlius ˈkaɪsar] in Classical Latin; conventionally pronounced /ˈgaɪəs ˈdʒuːliəs ˈsiːzɚ/ in English; July 13, 100 BC[2] – March 15, 44 BC), was a Roman military and political leader and one of the most influential men in world history. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. A politician of the populares tradition, he formed an unofficial triumvirate with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus which dominated Roman politics for several years, opposed in the Roman Senate by optimates like Marcus Porcius Cato and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus. His conquest of Gaul extended the Roman world all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, and he also conducted the first Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC; the collapse of the triumvirate, however, led to a stand-off with Pompey and the Senate. Leading his legions across the Rubicon, Caesar began a civil war in 49 BC from which he became the undisputed master of the Roman world. What Jello Says: He was the Napoleon of the ancient world. His celerity in moving his troops stunned both barbarian and Roman senator alike: there was a tale that said the Gallic king Vercingetorix once fell off his horse when he heard that Caesar had somehow crossed the Alps in winter and had ridden 400 miles in just 2 days to join his troops to quash the massive Gallic rebellion. Curiously, Caesar's more known (popularly) for his political exploits rather than his military ones. Yet in the ancient world, he was known as the master of both. A late bloomer, Caesar's military career began in his thirties, when he was the proprætor of Hispania. He was deeply in debt because of his lavish shows to the plebs (to gain political strength) and it is said that his debtors waited outside the gates of Roma to intercept him before he could join his troops. He was forced to sneak out at night. But he returned to the City as a conqueror, with enough wealth to erase his debt for good. His victories in Spain were spectacular enough to warrant a Triumph, but his political enemies conspired to arrange it late so that he would have to miss the consular elections in order to do so (for a Triumphator could not enter the city beforehand, or he would lose the right to his Triumph). He made a whirlwind of reforms during his term but quit it 6 months early so that he could rush to his provinces. He arranged for a special ten year term because a serving official could not be prosecuted by his political enemies. In those ten years, Gallia Comata changed from a wild, lawless backwater to an obedient province waiting to be Romanized. With just ten legions at the most, Caesar raced across Gaul with astonishing speed, conquering city after city and quelling revolt after revolt. His inspiration and hold over his troops was such that he was able to get a bridge capable of carrying 40,000 troops build over the raging Rhine in just ten days, a feat that would be impossible in modern times using the same tools. Caesar even landed on the shores of Britannia, though the isles were as yet too wild to be conquered. He proved to be a master propagandist as well, as his "Commentaries on the Gallic Wars" proved to be a major hit back home: his terse and laconic military style made for punchy reading, and served as their equivalent of a good war film. His greatest victory was at Alesia: where he besieged an "unassailable" Gallic fortress and then built siege works around his own army as well: so the walls were facing towards the city as well as away from it, a circumvallation that has never been matched in history. The Gallic relief force that was coming to break the siege was stopped cold by these defenses, and even though they found a thinly defended weak-spot to punch the majority of their troops through, the very appearance of Caesar fighting alongside them in his bright red clock spurred his troops to superhuman efforts, and the Gauls were driven off. The numbers for this battle vary, but Caesar overcame 200,000 to 500,000 Gauls with just 30,000 men: a documented number, rather than the hugely exaggerated figures of earlier Greek wars. Later, his tremendous defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus cemented Caesar's position as the greatest Roman military genius. It is said that one of Caesar's assassins sought refuge with the Gauls after he was outlawed, expecting them to favor the killer of their great oppressor. But such was Caesar's reputation that he became a figure of legend and song to the Celts, a god of war in their eyes as well; his assassination outraged the Gauls and they executed the man for blasphemy, and sent his skull to Caesar's heir Octavian. -----signature----- Roma Æterna\|SPQR Imperium Sine Fine "Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque" -Ennius, Annales "Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento;hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos" -Virgil, Aeneid
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
The_Loyal_Imperial Title: YAHTZEE Host RPF Winner - Best GM Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 1/7 1:46pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion) - Date Edited: 1/7 1:47pm (1 edits total) Edited By: The_Loyal_Imperial
	Alexander, fourth? Caesar, third? First and second have me most intrigued. I suppose one will be Napoleon. -----signature----- Attack of the Clones was released May 16, 2002. Star Wars: Republic covered the Clone Wars starting Jan 22, 2003. What's the next big Star Wars project? Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Fall 2008.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: EUC/JCC mod touring the Empire Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 1/8 12:12am Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)
	If Napoleon does end up being either #1 or #2, I could post him as well. I'm also a Napoleonic scholar. -----signature----- Roma Æterna\|SPQR Imperium Sine Fine "Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque" -Ennius, Annales "Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento;hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos" -Virgil, Aeneid
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darthdrago Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 1/10 7:52pm Subject: RE: The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion) - Date Edited: 1/10 8:01pm (1 edits total) Edited By: darthdrago
	First, a big thank you to Jello for graciously volunteering to post on Alexander & Caesar. Now for some comments... lorn_zahl posted: 10. David Petraeus (US) Now this is surprising. Not that Petraeus isn't skilled, but considering that we're not out of Iraq yet, I think it's way too early too tell how well Petraeus has done as C-in-C of all US forces in Iraq. I say he gets an "I" for incomplete. IceHawk posted: Why place Washington on the list? As a military leader his greatest asset was his image, the myth he formed around himself as the modern Cincinattus. He was perhaps a practical leader, with some skillful logistical capabilities and some unconventional tactics gleaned primarily from his militia days, but examined on a purely tactical and strategic level he had subordinates with superior abilities, and was nearly (supposedly) deposed as Commander in Chief after that fact began to make the rounds of the Congress. Washington's on the list for one reason: people voted for him, myself included. Actually I think you answered your own question in your next paragraph: he was practical. Like I stated earlier, I think G-Dub's greatest strength in the Revolution was hanging on. From what I've studied on the matter, I was left with the impression that Congress simply couldn't find anybody else with his qualifications, such as they were. Abruptly changing the commander of the militia might not have gone down well with those volunteers who staked their service on the promises of pay that Washington gave. His efforts to maintain morale were, IMO, a greater compliment to his ability than just strictly strategy (Valley Forge, anyone??).
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »