Historical heroes vs. the Vong

"Manfred von Richthofen (the Red Baron) "
Who do you think Baron Soontir Fel is based on?

 

I submit, my relatives King richard the lionhearted, and charlegmagne. Even though they were brutal, they had things that could be remembered as heroic.

 

Ok you want a hero who is not a General or Admiral or some commander that stayed behind the lines.....Francis Marian Martin (i think i got his name right)of the Revolutionary War.....see "The Patriot" a movie based on his story.

A South Carolinian resident who did not want to fight in the war but had no choice as the war came to his home. He was a Milita Man who lead farmers and other non-soliders into battle against the British. He used unheard of gurella tactics against the British. His efforts helped win the war in the end.

 

The patriot is not a true story and has lot's of anachronisms. but loosely based off of a real person is true.

 

THAT movie is awesome (esp. the last battle between him and that 'evil' Brit). It was sad though.

 

I believe the patriot was more or less based upon Daniel Morgan, the Swamp Fox of the Revolutionary War./

 

Rommel- The Desert Fox
Montgomery- The Desert Rat

 

So, people have nazi's as heroes, that is a bit scary.

 

I agree. If anyone has Goering on, I'll make fun of them, regardless of him being a Nazi or not, because he was a tuti fruity...if you'll take my meaning.

 

Rommel makes the list for the same reason Caesar and Napolean and Lee make the list. Because in their own minds, they were on the right side, and because they were some of the best.

 

I don't believe caesar or napolean, or alexander, to be heroes.

"Lee is a little different. the south broke away because the north was trying to control their rights and ideas. They wanted more freedom and believed the csa would be a more fair government. It was the north that kept on backstabbing the south throughout the history. infact earlier on the north wanted to pull away from the south. so problems were multplied by the north. The south also did not try to expand their territory they were only on the defensive, they only had to have at least stalemates to win(hold off the north). winning was better though . Ok, as for the north, they had to win because they were on the offensive. so the objectives were different. certain people in the south can be remembered as heroes becuase they were only wanted a better america. People from the north can be remembered as heroes because all they wanted was a united america. remember brothers killed brothers. both sides were americans and were killing their friends much different than rommhel or the nazies or the the ancient empires. One must also remember that it was grant himself at appomatix courthouse while dressed in dirty uniform, on seeing lee, in an immaculate clean uniform, that he felt embarrased for how he looked. read this link for more, it's worth it.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/relee/relee.htm

http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page125.html

as you can see, grant respected Lee, and he was considered a hero. He is still a hero of the south. On the other hand sherman grant's friend is hated by the south, and if you talk about him in someplaces you will get beat up. So it all depend on your oppinion of U.S. and CSA soldiers. But remember we lost the most american soldiers in that war than any other war put together. 6,000,000 million tragedies, of men, woman, and children. All fighting for ideal and freedom. Most historians remember both sides as of having Hero's because both sides had good reasons for fighting.

Rhomell on the other hand was a member of corrupt ideals and allied with flat out murders. Also a nation trying to spread their beliefs on the nations around them. as they took over. not right, no man has the right to make that choice. If you must take a hero, from that war, on the german side, it has to be of the german army(not nazies), like my uncle who dies 3 years ago, he fought for his country not for the nazi Regime. This would be sort of like the soldier from alls quite on the western front. A man with noble ideals but not part of the leaders, elite. just a joe blow doing his duty for his nation.

 

Mel Gibson!

 

They all are heros to their own people. Like Thrawn is a hero to the Empire but a war criminal to the Republic.

 

Air Marshal Herman Göring was no more than a vulgar coxcomb who possesses the ethics of a tramp and the military skills of a gander. He lost his air-crafts as fast as Admiral Daala lost her Star Destroyers. Well, considering this, he would make a fair terrestrial couterpart of the Termagant Tantrum Thrower.

 

Hey Daala would fit for him then! Both stupid in tactics and both have a record of losing there ships....

 

But was Daala a tuti fruiti? That's probably the main difference.

Cheers.

 

I'm not sure if Wellington should be considered a hero .

He was a good soldier certainly, but he treated his native country rather badly and unjustly .He was a great 'british' hero but e was very willing to sacrifice his Irish roots to fit in and in his later days he didn't serve the parentland as well as he he could (or ought) .Yours

 

Ireland did not become independent of Great Britain until 1920, and Northern Ireland still remained as part of the British territory. Wellington was a British by nationality and political affiliation. Period. He served his fatherland well, salvaging it from the bottom of the perils. He, then, was a hero to his country.

-Daala

I find both Göring and Daala crass in their tastes, crude in their outlooks, and shallow in their intelligence. That is why I made such an analogy.

 

Three great modern (alive) hero is Ret. Gen.s Charles "Chuck" Horner, Colin Powell, and Schwarskof (sp?, dont remember 1st name). All three were veterans of the Persian Gulf War (10th anniversary yesterday). They were great because their number one "obsession" was the minimum live lost. Great job them 3.

Besides Grant and Lee; Sherman, Sheridain, and Burnsides. They were very honorable and brilliant Generals. America has too many war heroes from too many wars

 

Sherman, Like I said before he is in dispute, some cruelty like killing civilians as he went through on his march to the sea, has kept him from being a hero to much of the US, you will be beat up if you talk about him in the south. but he is still a hero to the north, und I respect him for that.

 

I'm not condonig what Sherman or his subordinates did, but at that time, the ENTIRE South was the enemy. He instituted Total Warfare, because everybody in the South was helping the war effort. They had no choice. Unfortunately, the institution would prove disasterous for the UK during the Battle of Britian, the subsequent daily day/night raids on Berlin, the firbombing of Tokyo, and dropping the 'Hammer' on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Sherman's indirect form of warfare.

 

killing civilians and having no choice? He wasn't commanded to do it he made that choice on his own. that extreme breach or wrongness. He could have easily took over withouth killing civilians(especially since many surrendered as he went through the towns).

 

General Sherman's actions, from the perspective of a military student, were justified by the principle of psychological warfare and dislocation of morales. He had hit the nerve center of the South, instead of battering his brains out against the bulwark of military forces.

 

But in todays rules, killing civilians will get you court marshalled and put up on murder charges. If he killed military targets fine, burning fiels and crops, it's war you have to keep the supplies away from the enemy. but innocent men, woman and children, that is barbaric, in every sense of the word. He was a murderer through and through.

by the way it technically wasn't a war because lincoln never declared war, he was just cleaning up the rebels.

 

Most of the cruelty attributed to Sherman on the March to the Sea can better be attributed to the deserters from both sides who followed in the wake of Shermans army. These bummers, as they were refered to, actually were far harsher and more difficult to deal with. And other Union Generals were far crueler when it game to dealing with the Southern People than Sherman. He just realized that in order to win, the people had to no longer have faith in their own army. If the army can't protect them from being harmed by an invading army, then what good is it. Kinda like what's happening in the NJO right now.