Discussion in 'Literature' started by FighterJock, Jan 13, 2001.
We really should open some of the old history threads again.
Valiento, there is not moral war. The only way to be humanitarian is to end the war at all costs.
Valiento, there is not moral war. The only way to be humanitarian is to end the war at all costs. One of hitler beliefs was to exterminate jews, to win the war at all costs he killed millions of them. Does that make it ok. No way. we probably could discuss alot more attrocities that wrong and don't make winning the war at all cost right. Killing civilians on purpose(accidental is allowes), is one of the most unforgiveable things. If sherman, was not the blame and it was those bummers, they are unforgivable.
Soldiers are just professionally armed civilians.
I did not say *winning* the war. I said *ending* the war. Termination does not mean victory. Hitler's war of conquest is only a means to serve his all-aryan state, not the other way around. He did not kill the Jews to win the war; he wanted to win the war so he could gain more territory and kill more Jews.
I would blame Sherman more for the armies treatment of South Carolina. In Georgia, his orders were to be more a military than total warfare. Yes, in Georgia he did take the war to civilians by haveing the army eat of the land. But from some of what I've discovered, he ordered the army to not treat the civilians of Georgia harshly outside of taking what they needed. They were not to take anything but that which could be consumed from civilians and they were not to harm the people. In South Carolina, he seems to have looked the other way as the army, and he himself, viewed South Carolina as the seat of seccesion and the start of the war.
But it was the bummers that did most of the damage in Georgia. They were a lawless band who did not care what orders were. they took what they wanted whether it was food of someones possesions. They looted, killed, raped, and burned.
all around bad people, those lame bummers.
As a Marine I must say Chesty Puller. 5 Navy Crosses. Need I say more?
Lt-Gen Sir Harry Chauvel, commander of the Desert Mounted Corps. He commanded the assault on the town of Beersheba in October 1917. His use of unorthodox tactics resulted in success for the day. Standard tactics for the units involved were to ride their horses to the combat zone, dismount and fight as infantry - the Light Horse charged Beersheba as cavalry and made the last great cavalry charge.
My point is that the use of unusual or unorthodox tactics can have a substantial benefit on the outcome of the war.
Kadue, you said we as Australians don't have any Military heros... what about all those who won the Victoria Cross? It's only the highest honour in the Imperial (English) system, which was used within Australia until relatively recently.
As for those who kicked arse on a grand scale... D Coy 6th Bn Royal Australian Regiment. The place: the Long Tan rubber plantation 1966. 1 Company of Aussie diggers Vs. approximately 2500 VC and NVA. The firefight lasted most of the afternoon with helicopters dropping extra filled magazines and belted ammo to the diggers. The only other external support was from artillery. The next day when the recovery was being done, the Aussies were burying the dead VC and NVA when the scouts reported movement. Those that had been chased off had come back to bury their dead and found the Aussie troops doing it for them, which earned their respect. D Company 6th Battalion was awarded the US Presidential Citation, which is still worn by Company members who have served more than 3 months with the Battalion.
The 1st Bn RAR also gave the warlords of Somalia a damn good shaking back in 93 as well.
Hmm.... maybe all the New Republic needs is a couple of Battalions on loan from the ADF for a couple of months....
Wellington was born a citizen of the Kingdom of Ireland .This means he was not by any stretch British by nationality as Ireland was not linked in common nationality until the union of 1801 .Up until that point it is a very similar situation to the Spanish Netherlands in the previous century - a independent Kingdom linked by a common crown as vested in George III KING OF IRELAND .All of this means he failed to serve his fatherland - unless of course it could be proved Ireland was under threat of war with France - at all .He served his monarch which is a different thing altogether, though he arguably served his monarch well .His fatherland was the KINGDOM OF IRELAND and he failed entirely in saving that Kingdom from it's perils .His record as PM was extremely poor in it's treatment of Ireland and he personally attempted to stop the emancipation of Catholics who made up a large majority of the citizens of the Kingdom of his birth THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND .
He could could be seen as having adopted Britishness while living there which would make him a hero of the country he was later a citizen of but he still cannot be viewed as having acted heroically in regards to his fatherland THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND .
PS: It was actually 1922 (Dominion status granted), or 1916 (Republic declared) or even 1948 (left Commonwealth) NOT 1920 .
Kadue, Alexander only held his conquests until his death because he died in his early thirties while still campaigning, and even before his death there were already rebellions and treason starting.
On top of Casta's ancient historical personalities (particularly scipio) I think that
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)
would do pretty well.
In 57 BC, with the passing of the Lex Manilia, Pompey erradicated every pirate gang in the Mediterranean in less than 3 months- going half of it in something like 2 weeks. And on top of this, Pompey made countless military achievements throughout the early half of the first century BC. In my opinion he was definately one of history's most underrated military commanders.
If Pompey can take back the (relatively) vast and important and pirate ridden Mediterranean, i think he'd do a decent job taking back the massive wedge which the Vong have taken out of the GFFA.
Pompey had good legates (and massive numerical supperiority) though.... he didn't do it singlehanded .
And I maintain that both Caesar and Seritorius were better than Pompey as they usually achieved impressive victories (over Pompey !) with smaller forces, while Pompey never liked campaiging with inferior forces .Yours
Another thing just on this whole history/military/vong thing, I have very little knowledge of modern history, but is the Vong invasion kind of reminiscant of the German 'blitzkrieg' (sp) invasion of Russia in WWII? both the germans and the vong just sort of cut straight into this very small part of a very wide front with a massive invasion force and pretty much worked out from there, which looks like what the vong are trying to do now. And it also appears that the Vong are splitting their invasion force with the intension of encircling the core and coruscant- which is what the Germans did to Kiev and many other Russian cities, after spearing straight through the centre of russia.
I'm thinking that right now, Leia is thinking something along the lines of a rather obscure Stalin quote I heard last night: "we inherited this from (Palpatine). We were the heirs. And we ****ed it up" (no joke, that really was on this documentary last night as a quote from stalin).
Ok, Time to chime in with some interesting choices here.
Francis Marion, ie the Swamp Fox, was probably the best guerrilla warfare fighter in American History. Daniel Morgan as someone said earlier fought for the american people up in the North and helped to defeat GEntleman Burgoyne at Saratoga. Marion was able to hold Cornwallis, Tarleton, and other British generals to a standstill with his guerrilla tactics using basic militia with no real military training that was used during the day.
Admiral "Bull" Halsey would be another one who could be thought to be good, other than the fact that he didn't pay attention to other factors around him. He was a great motivator though.
John Mosby of Mosby's raiders was another great guerrilla fighter from american history. He scared the living bejeebers out of the Union in and around DC with his ability to move in capture a union general or two and move out with out capture.
What was said about Sherman and his actions in Gerogia and South Carolina, is for the most part true. He tried to keep the "March to the Sea" relatively clean. It as the hanger ons who did the damage. Now as for South Carolina. As the Hot seat of the rebellion, he along with the rest of the Union, felt that they should bear the brunt of the damage, and let loose.
Other Greats that I feel should be at least mentioned.
von Manstein. His tactisc and use of strategy helped win in the east, at least in the beginning for the Germans.
Frederick the Great. His use of close order formation was the first time anyone was able to bring such an amount of firepower to bear on the enemy. Later, his ability with maneuver won him many battles in the 30 years war.
Jackson - his use of his foot calvary kept the Union army in near turmoil in the Shenandoah valley campaign. If he had not been shot by his own men coming back from a recon during Chancelorrsville, Lee would have been able to hold off Union victory that much longer.
Just to name a few.
Jar Jar Binks- has ever such an ingenious noble, gallant, graceful and brave general existed? I think not.
Robert E. Lee is possibly the most overrated figure in military history. His victories should be atributed much more to the incompetance of Union commanders, rather than any great innovative strategies or tactics of his own.
The Seven Days battle was a fairly decent exercise in defense through offensive maunevering, but there was no real reason why McClellan should have withdrawn from in front of Richmond past his own cowardice and paranoia.
Second Bull Run was a well conducted battle, but Pope's defeat is again due to his own overconfidance, which reached trully epic proportions. Lee offered little to the battle besides basic common sense strategies. The Union rout should be atributed to Jackson's steady defense of his line, and Longstreet's attack on Pope's left flank, not to Lee. Lee even initialy only wanted an artillery barage against the flank that Pope so stupidly left exposed, but Longstreet talked him into a full scale assault that devestated the Union position.
At Antietam, Lee was saved from the outright destruction of his army by McClellan's incompetance. But only barely. First of all, the invasion into Maryland was an ill concieved and poorly executed plan, but Lee strategy of placing his army in front of the potamac, which had only one usable ford near his position, made no sense at all. The army of northern Virginia would have been anhiliated if McClellan wasn't so stupid and had put in his reserves at the end. But he didn't, and the myth of Lee grew greater.
Fredricksburg was a joke. There was no strategy. The confederates sat behind a stone wall at an impregnable position and anhilated an assault force that Burnside was stupid enough to send.
Chancellorsvile is quite rightly Lee's most controversial battle. According to all logic, Lee's force should have been destroyed. Rather than make a stand in the Wilderness, Lee divided his forces for an assault, a decision that can only be described as reckless. He was already outnumbered, without most of Longstreet's corps and another division at Fredricksburg. After the attack on the XI corps, Hooker should have been able to destroy the confenderates with a counteratack, even with the XI corps scattered, he still outnumbered the confederates by a wide margin. Any competant general would have been able to pull a victory out of the situation presented. Instead, Hooker had a nervous breakdown and the Union position collapsed.
Gettysburg is of course known as Lee's greatest failure. Indeed, it began before the invasion into Pennsylvania began, as Lee dismissed far more sound sugestions by Longstreet and Beauregard to send forces into the western theater, where they were needed, in favor of an offensive in the eastern theater. And at Gettysburg, Lee's conduct was poor. He was gripped with a fanatic confidence that no matter what, his men would prevail, and so when faced with a halfway decent Union commander, Meade, who didn't realy contribute anything to the battle of Gettysburg himself other than the decision not to retreat, was defeated. Lee didn't learn from the defeat at Fredricksburg, that charging fortified hights with foot soldiers and 1860's weaponry gave you a defeat.
Lee was certainly an honorable man, of great personal character and dignity. But that doesn't make him the General he is portrayed as.
The same could be said of are battles in revolutionary war, were the brits had the superiority and brilliant men, but through british incompetance we still won. But It could have easily had the same outcome of the civil war. with the rebels losing.
Agueybana would stand up and fight the Vong for sure, just like he did against the Spanish. But if he lost against Spaniards, he would lose against the Vong much faster.
Actually, the British generals in the Revolution weren't really incompetant at all, they just had a completely diferent mindset on how to fight a war. There were certainly no majorly incompetant brit generals on the level of a McClellan, Burnside, Pope, or Hooker.
I personally don't think Washington gets the credit he deserves for his tactics. Granted, he made some serious errors, namely at New York, but the Trenton/Princeton campaign was a masterful exercise in feint and maneuver, and the Yorktown campaing was extremely well done.
I agree for the most part, but their were some blunders during the war for the brits. during the 3 prong offensive, one of the prongs never showed up, etc.
But I do understand that the redcoats weren't all prepared for the rebels unorthodoxed ways of fighting. For instance, getting drunk was the death of the hessians because they were killed in their sleep by the rebels. If they wouldn't have been schlockered they wouldn't have been killed as easy.
Frederick the Great was just a superior carnation of a Prussian military man: geometrical in formation, precise in execution, and the term "the art of war" did not exist in his military vocabulary.
Pompeius was not all *that* overrrated. His problems did not associate with his military skills, but with his own character and the political situation surrounding him. He was, doubtlessly, a very able soldier. But that is all he was--a gifted, inspired soldier. Absolutely...nothing more. Had Pompeius possessed more political acumen, there would have been no Julius Caesar as one knows him today. To exacerbate the personal factor, Pomepius the Irresolute, like the nickname implies, lacked quite a lot in resolution--always one step slow on one thing or another. He was vain (for one can say he was wholy undeserving of the cognomen Magnus), and he lacked the sense of initiative seen in many of his counterparts. Moreover, unlike Julius Caesar, he constantly suffered from division of command and the slights of his subordinate commanders, no mentioning the horde of demanding, ungrateful and Procrustean senators. In conclusion, to win a war decisively, being merely a good soldier is never enough.
Kickin' @$$ deam team
Lead by G.S. Patton (the man, the incarnation of alexander the great)
Lil' Phil Sheridan
Lt. Col. Dobbins
Command Sgt. Major Meyer (Dobbins and Meyers are my idols)