Historical heroes vs. the Vong

What military heroes from YOUR country, not another one or a non-existant one, would fare best against the vong (given proper tech training, of course)?

I'm American, so I'll say General Jimmy Doolittle from WWII. He reminds me of Wedge. He led a bomber raid against Japan in response to Pearl Harbor. He later led the fighter corp. in N.Africa and commanded the 4th air force for the remainder of the war. Afterwards, he was an influential in the Gemini and Apollo programs.
He would be a perfect starfighter commender.

 

Ooh, good post for the history fan such as me.

I'm an American:

I think Pershing would rock, as would George Patton. Pershing is the epitimy of hard gutted command, and Patton has the passion to take down any ****in Vong sons of b****es. (Small joke for anyone familliar with Patton)

Pershing basically reminds me of no one in Rogue Squadron, but he was highest next to Washington, and kicked major butt in WWI and Pancho Villa's raids.

Patton, well the man is amazing. A natural athlete (an olympian from 1912), and a genious commander. He doesn't back down, and was clearly the fighter. While working with Pershing, he killed 3 of Villa's men, and tied two of them to the bumper and front of the jeep and drove around with them there. As for in WWII, he could cuss up a storm, and had tactical advantage when it came to Bastogne, Tunisia, and others. I also like McArthur, and so many other WWII commanders! I could go on and on, but I'll leave my WWII fandom at that.

 

ulysses simpson grant. what he did for the union in the north was just amazing, he'd probably just kick vond a**.

 

grant lost lots of men because he wouldn't let up in a fight, but in that, was the reason he won. pershing sort of reminds me of general Cracken

 

Ireland has had only a few heroes (I don't consider the record of Irish soldiers in the British Army - splendid though it may be - to have much of a heroic place) .However...

Michael Collins would probably cripple the Vongs intelligence system and launch attacks on their overextended supply lines .

Brian Boru would use political skill to get everyone else in the Galaxy under his command and then crush the Vong through massive numerical superiority (and sheer brute force) .

Sarsfield would probably say something dashing and honourable and launch near suicidal attacks to let the rest of the NR regroup .

Pearse would lead a revolt in Vong occupied terrority on the most symbolic planet he could find (logistics be damned) .

O'Neil would would ambuse Vong fleets and encourage independent attacks by the other major powers .

Yours

 

I don't think you Yanks are giving Robert E. Lee enough credit.



From Canada, Sir William Stephenson would have to be the man for the job. Don't recognize the name? How about Intrepid? Still don't know who the heck I'm talking about? How about James Bond. Ian Flemming wrote the original Bond books based on his friend and fellow spy.

"During World War II, William Stephenson set up Great Britain's spy operations in the Western Hemisphere and coordinated the exchange of intelligence between Great Britain and the United States. In this capacity, he also served as a trusted and confidential intermediary between Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Stephenson's influence extended to helping shape U.S. wartime intelligence and special operations capabilities, namely the OSS, later the CIA. Among the operations undertaken by Stephenson and his New York City based operation was the neutralization of Axis spies, including assassination of Nazi agents with hit and run automobile "accidents" and shooting another through the window of an office building. Such accounts helped inspire the modern spy novels, including the popular James Bond series written by fellow British spy Ian Fleming. A detailed account of Stephenson's life and exploits can be found in a book titled A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson, no relation."
- by Richard Rongstad, 26 June 1997.

"DIED. William Stephenson, 93, Canadian-born master spy to whom Winston Churchill gave the code name Intrepid; in Bermuda. Protean in his exploits, Stephenson served as a captain in the trenches and then as an ace pilot during World War I. In the 1920s he invented a method for sending pictures by radio waves. Stephenson directed British intelligence operations in the western hemisphere in World War II, notably the breaking of Nazi ciphers and the disruption of German atomic experiments. "
-Time, Feb. 13, 1989, page 76

 

Lee was great, one of the most honorable men alive, He did a great job, without as much loss of men as grant. Yes he would have been great against the vong. Even Grant aknowledged lees greatness. We haven't put him down in the least. and he goes on the list. Only reason grant one was because of his bullheaded tactics and sheer number of loss of life. Lee had to be carefule with his men because the south was limited in resources.

 

American- Eisenhower....for some reason he reminds me of um....dang it now i forgot his name....He's an Admiral....not ackbar or krefey...not Bel Iblis....not cracken....grrrr....i cant remember!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, General Rommel (Although not a hero to the victors but a great commander none the less, he could represent the Empire then) would be great to attack the Vong by using his gurella tactics.

 

I'm American (and proud of it!)

I would choose:

Douglas MacArthur commanded a division in WWI, a majority of allied troops in the Pacific Theater in WWII, and all the UN forces in Korea.

He easily ranks as one of America's greatest generals. His allies and enemies alike, honored his strategic brilliance, and mastery of amphibious warfare, (he could master space warfare- he just needs to brush up a little) and his ability to achive victory with minimum casualties.( The NR needs a guy that can do the job without limping back home with a quarter of the ships he came there with)

 

I'm a student of the classics. I therefore care cipher for WWI and WWII, in which distinguished generals were hardly on a par with their predecessors.


Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. Phenomenal genius. Military mastermind. Victorious Roman leader during the Second Punic War. Scipio, as his name implies, was the staff that directed the Eternal City to the final triumph of war and inaugurated its world supremacy. He was one of those few Romans who understood the value of calvary and who had complemented the legions with mobility of the calvary force and versatility of the velites, the light-armed troops. He was a man of rare imagination and initiative. Every battle he fought is an elegant model of the art of war. As a commander, he was never to fight a battle that he did not win--doubtlessly the greatest Roman general before the rise of Gaius Julius Caesar. Man, soldier, and superior intellect.

Belisarius. He spearheaded the conquests of the Byzantinian Empire of Justinian by, curiously, staying tactically defensive and strategically offensive. There is no parallel in history for such a series of conquests by abstention from attack, as Liddell Hart puts it. Belisarius had usually lead an incredibly slim force, yet nonetheless accomplished his objectives. He was all masterfulness in turning his own disadvantages in numerity into superiority in mobility (Byzantinian forces, contrary to the Roman ones, largely comprised of calvary and archers) against his opponents, and lure his enemies with subtlety into his trap by tempting them to attack first.

Albrecht Eusebeius Wenzeslaus of Waldstein, better known as Duke Wallenstein. Father of grand strategy. Master of maneuvers and psychological warfare. He dampened and eclisped Gustavus Adolphus' impression as invicible without even severely engaging himself. He had accomplished so simply by avoiding battles with Gustavus. It was said that tens of thousands flocked to fight under him during the Thirty Year War simply because of the name Wallenstein.

King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. Founder of the modern army. He forged hs tactical instrument and revolutionized warfare by means of systematic organization and standardized procedures. He emphasized officer education, national recruitment, and the combination of firepower and mobility. He is a man of prudence, yet also of resolution. His strategy exmplified the principle of seurity as well as the necessity of unobstructed communication. Gustavus Adolphus is perhaps one of the noblest Great Captains of all time, less a despotic conqueror than a benevolent sovereign. He wielded his power with discretion and moderation, showing a moving purity of soul and greatness of mind.

 

I'm American (and proud of it!)

I would choose:

Douglas MacArthur commanded a division in WWI, a majority of allied troops in the Pacific Theater in WWII, and all the UN forces in Korea.

He easily ranks as one of America's greatest generals. His allies and enemies alike, honored his strategic brilliance, and mastery of amphibious warfare, (he could master space warfare- he just needs to brush up a little) and his ability to achive victory with minimum casualties.( The NR needs a guy that can do the job without limping back home with a quarter of the ships he came there with)

 

I put up yamamoto for being a brilliant tactician and a honorable man, he hated having to bomb us americans(he loved americans as his friends), but had duty to his homeland. It's too bad he died before peace was reinstated. He would of loved returning to being a friend of america. I as an american would have loved to have met him in peaceful times after the war.

 

Well, if no one else is limiting themselves to their home countries, I nominate the Duke of Wellington.

He led Brit forces in India, pushing back the locals better than anyone else. It was India that made him the great General history remembers him as.

Returning to Europe, he was sent to Spain, to fight the Peninsular War. British, Portuguese and Spanish troops under his command retook Spain, and were pressing deep into France when Napoleon resigned.

And he beat Napoleon at Waterloo, the only defeat that Napoleon ever suffered on a battlefield. And he did it with an inferior army.

 

Sun-Tzu, should I say more?

 

General George Washington. The man himself.

 

Solid Snake from MetalGear Solid, he'd infiltrate the Vong without them noticing and then he'd leave a big bomb behind and blow them all up.

 

Sun-Tzu is a quintessential theorist. The figures about whom we're discussing here are all field commanders. Putting Sun-Tzu in charge is like giving B.H. Liddell Hart, the preeminent tank proponent, a division of tanks to command. The splendor of theoretical brilliance turns into futile reality. They know how to do it, but they can not do it themselves.

Gandolf, Napoléon Bonaparte suffered more than one defeat on battlefileld. For example, he was defeated by Gen. Blücher and Gen. Schwarzenberg at Leipzig in the fall of 1813. Sir Arthur Wellesley's triumph over Napoléon in no way placed him in a niche above His Imperial Majesty, just as Gnaeus Pompeius' victory over Cæsar at Dyrrachium in no way eclipsed Cæsar's brilliance later at Pharsalus. In one of Wellington's biographers' words, "direct and narrow realism was the essence of Wellington's character. It was responsible for his limitations and defects, but in the larger stage of his public career it amounted to genius."

Valiento, Yamamoto was a Harvard graduate and had lived in US for several years. However, he did not hate bombing US, for he proposed this surprise assault on Pearl Harbor, and threatened a resgination if the Naval High Command did not approve. Personal honor is unconcerned in the case of duty to one's country.

 

Solid Snake is not real

 

"Valiento, Yamamoto was a Harvard graduate and had lived in US for several years."

heard about that.


"However, he did not hate bombing US, for he proposed this surprise assault on Pearl Harbor" yes he prosed that because it was a possible winning strategy, but didn't want to do it.

"and threatened a resgination if the Naval High Command did not approve. Personal honor is unconcerned in the case of duty to one's country." I read that he wanted high command to come up with an alternative if possible.

obviosly different history books, teachers and documentories have different views on the different people and what they did, I read have heard differently than you, I'm not sure what to think of this new information.

As for sun-ztu many a officer has never been a field general, yet their works have been used by those that are. I was using him as a text book manual on how to deafeat the vong and the fact that his work has influenced field generals throughtout history.

 

Solid Snake is more real than you or I. He is more real than any man who has ever lived.

Snake is God.

 

What makes a hero? That is first the question we must answer before we actually choose heros for our answer. It seems, for the most part, that we have been choosing leaders because we're told that their heros. By using that belief, we can choose any leader as a hero. But it is not always true that they are hero's. What is true is that leaders are more likely to get int the news than the people they lead. Thusly, they are more likely to go down in history as figures we can learn about.

Having just finished reading the historic novel Gone For Soldiers recently, I am reminded of something that was either in the book or suggested to me by it. In fact, I believe it was something General Scott said in the book. Heros are those who march into the face of the enemies guns and bayonettes because that is their job. The leaders are the ones that send them to face death while they can stay back in safety. So while this may or may not be true of every hero, it's basic point is that a hero is going to be someone willing to swallow their fear and face whatever they must. Thusly, a hero is anyone from a leader to someone whom history will probably forget.

So having said this, let me say that many of the names I've seen mentioned are definately heros. But what about folks such as Richard Kirkland, the so called "Angel of Marye's Heights". A Confederate soldier from South Carolina, during a lull in the fighting at the Marye's Heights area in the Battle of Fredricksburg, Kirkland requested permisson from his commanding officer to bring water to injured and dieing enemy soldiers on the battlefield. While this was granted, his additional request to carry a white flag so as not to be shot at was not. Even so, Kirkland didn't stop from doing what he requested, even though it could have cost him his life. Kirkland would die later in the war, but his compasion for the enemy was noted on both sides. And that same compasion makes Richard Kirkland a hero.

Now then, as for Robert E. Lee and Northerners not viewing him as a hero, it is sad but true. Many in the North view him not as a hero but as a loser. Why should we do that? We have no proff that Lee actually supported any and all the beliefs of the Confederacy. But he did say that he would not raise a hand in violence against his native state. So if Virginia had not secceded, Lee would not have left the Union Army. And more importantly than that, Lee chose to surrender to Grant at Appomatax Courthouse rather than do what he could have and have his army disperese to fight as gurellias. His compassion for his men led him to do what he could to save their lives rather than keep fighting and loosing those lives. And once more, it is his compasion and his standing by his morales that makes him a hero. But you can't convince a lot of people about that in this country, which is truely sad.

 

I would like to submit, George Washington Carver, who had created wonderful advancements in Agracultural technology, and was a leader in the black suffrage(not directly, but by proving he he was as smart as any white man.) movement, because of it. Genetic engineering anyone? If it existed he probably would have been involved.

I believe that lee was a hero, win or lose(i'm from the north but my ancestors were from the south, I see both sides as heros,but see some as william sherman to be a brutal animal(killing innocent civilians that had surrendered on his march to the sea)) No wonder the south hated him.

 

Military theory is no more than beautiful brain waves if one can not find the right conveyor to fulfill those principles. Genius of war is inborn, not acquired through textbook materials, or else many mediocre commanders would have profited by the intellectual product of others. Knowing it is not enough, the key lies in--knowing how to apply it against a formidable opponent, not mentioning the fickle Fortune and other elements such as time and space. If there is a commander to be found to defeat the Vong, and if he is a genius, it does not matter where his genius comes from. If the commander is a moron, it matters little if other people have benefited greatly from the materials that he takes as his guide. All that which Sun-Tzu did was distilling the military actions of men into words. Others fight with sword, he, with his paintbrush.

 

"Others fight with sword, he, with his paintbrush."

Ah, yes, but the pen is mighter than the sword. many a battle was won through diplomacy and peace.

How about einstein whose genius won the world war II, and also created improvements in modern technology, who also was a devout pascifist(but knew when violance was needed.)

one must remember the words of yoda, "War does not make one great"

 

Exactly Valiento. We need to broaden our Views of heros from just military heros, which most of us have done. Some of us have done that already.