Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Poll Only
Who is the smartest person to have ever lived?
Topic Started: Oct 14 2011, 03:12 PM (4,206 Views)
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:29 PM
Squee913
May 10 2012, 07:24 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:11 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 07:03 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use. Warfare has changed. So much, in fact, that most of the famous tactics of his are obsolete and useless today, even if the book itself is not. So a book that is used today may be an eligible reason for the highest impact writing, or best strategical book, but not for making him the most intelligent general. It does mean that, as you said, something is right with it. But so is leading men that literally believe you are the son of the horned god of revenge because you are that good.

you know, many leaders around the early iron age and late bronze age thought they were gods. ramses, Genghis Khan, that chinese emporer who built the forbidden palace (can't remember his name), Ivan the terrible (well he thought he was an angel, but same difference) I recall them all going by the "I was sent by god or I am a god" reasoning, and their subjects all had various reasons to believe them; mainly death if they didn't.
Did anyone of those conquer almost 20 million square miles at the age of 25 without defeat? Also I don't blame Ramses for thinking he was a god, because ancient egypt believed all pharos were gods. Alexander was so legendary and immensely revered for a reason, and some of the legends of him, like building a still standing land bridge to Tyre, are widely regarded as factual truths.

Not that I would take anything away from Alexander, but I should point out that Genghis Khan conquered an area roughly 4 times the size of what he did. I know he did not do it by the age of 25, but Alexander's father formed the army and already cleared Greece for him. He just had to take it and run. Khan had to unite all the tribes before he could go to war and that takes time.
Yes, Ghengis arguably was the most efficient conquerer, but a huge part of hiss success was sheer numbers and individual troop superiority, as they were probably some of the best mounted archers ever. I also do not think how Alexander acquired an army plays on his intelligence.
It doesn't, but the fact Genghis Kahn had to unite his tribes, for example, while Alexander started out with a ready-trained army, can be used to the advantage of other genrals on the list.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Chocl8215
Member Avatar
Man of great chocolate
(tired to multi-quote, failed miserably, this is refering to what squee said)

A: yeah, you said it in a thoughts behind the wheel

B: would love to see that paper, i remember you saying you got an A on every one of them.
Edited by Chocl8215, May 10 2012, 07:37 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Squee913
May 10 2012, 07:32 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:29 PM
Squee913
May 10 2012, 07:24 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:11 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 07:03 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use. Warfare has changed. So much, in fact, that most of the famous tactics of his are obsolete and useless today, even if the book itself is not. So a book that is used today may be an eligible reason for the highest impact writing, or best strategical book, but not for making him the most intelligent general. It does mean that, as you said, something is right with it. But so is leading men that literally believe you are the son of the horned god of revenge because you are that good.

you know, many leaders around the early iron age and late bronze age thought they were gods. ramses, Genghis Khan, that chinese emporer who built the forbidden palace (can't remember his name), Ivan the terrible (well he thought he was an angel, but same difference) I recall them all going by the "I was sent by god or I am a god" reasoning, and their subjects all had various reasons to believe them; mainly death if they didn't.
Did anyone of those conquer almost 20 million square miles at the age of 25 without defeat? Also I don't blame Ramses for thinking he was a god, because ancient egypt believed all pharos were gods. Alexander was so legendary and immensely revered for a reason, and some of the legends of him, like building a still standing land bridge to Tyre, are widely regarded as factual truths.

Not that I would take anything away from Alexander, but I should point out that Genghis Khan conquered an area roughly 4 times the size of what he did. I know he did not do it by the age of 25, but Alexander's father formed the army and already cleared Greece for him. He just had to take it and run. Khan had to unite all the tribes before he could go to war and that takes time.
Yes, Ghengis arguably was the most efficient conquerer, but a huge part of hiss success was sheer numbers and individual troop superiority, as they were probably some of the best mounted archers ever. I also do not think how Alexander acquired an army plays on his intelligence.
No, you are right of course, it merely referred to his ability to do it at the age of 25. I agree that he had a stronger mind for tactics, up there with Hannibal, but see that is where this gets so tricky. Do we go by success, or intent? Some generals were dumb as a brick and very successful, others were brilliant and failed miserably.
He had to have been brilliant to the extend he could vanquish considerably larger foes with little trouble. His tactics won the many many battles, if he relied on sheer luck it would've caught up with him sooner or later. But from examining reports of battles (although from that long ago they can be extremely inaccurate) you can tell tactical advantage and superior strategy eliminated armies of his foes.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 07:28 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:25 PM
I also think you can't argue the greatest artist, because it's all opinions. I, for one, hate Shakespeare's work.
you have to look at what can be objectified, for instance squee put it well when he said "if the fire extinguisher can put out a fire, then it is a good fire extinguisher" for instance; I hate twilight, but I can't argue that it isn't successful, the thing grossed what, over $200,000,000? $300,000,000? you can't say that isn't success.
I fear you have fallen into the trap of defining greatness based upon money, popularity or recognition at the time. Success financially does not necessarily deem something great.

E.g. If a man won battle after battle which he was heavily favoured in, yet that battles result in lots of popularity and financial gain as it was an important war... Does that make him greater at commanding than one guy who wins one battle where he is outnumbered by thousands, and gains no financial advantages or popularity?

How about a well known author with lots of advertising money behind her, who sells millions of books and gets a lot of money? Is she a greater writer than a man who writes a book which changes 10 peoples lives and makes no money?

Art is, in particular, very hard to define as great or greatest as it is mostly subjective.

I would also point out Leonidas or Hannibal as great generals
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
RandomMan1
May 10 2012, 07:35 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:29 PM
Squee913
May 10 2012, 07:24 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:11 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 07:03 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use. Warfare has changed. So much, in fact, that most of the famous tactics of his are obsolete and useless today, even if the book itself is not. So a book that is used today may be an eligible reason for the highest impact writing, or best strategical book, but not for making him the most intelligent general. It does mean that, as you said, something is right with it. But so is leading men that literally believe you are the son of the horned god of revenge because you are that good.

you know, many leaders around the early iron age and late bronze age thought they were gods. ramses, Genghis Khan, that chinese emporer who built the forbidden palace (can't remember his name), Ivan the terrible (well he thought he was an angel, but same difference) I recall them all going by the "I was sent by god or I am a god" reasoning, and their subjects all had various reasons to believe them; mainly death if they didn't.
Did anyone of those conquer almost 20 million square miles at the age of 25 without defeat? Also I don't blame Ramses for thinking he was a god, because ancient egypt believed all pharos were gods. Alexander was so legendary and immensely revered for a reason, and some of the legends of him, like building a still standing land bridge to Tyre, are widely regarded as factual truths.

Not that I would take anything away from Alexander, but I should point out that Genghis Khan conquered an area roughly 4 times the size of what he did. I know he did not do it by the age of 25, but Alexander's father formed the army and already cleared Greece for him. He just had to take it and run. Khan had to unite all the tribes before he could go to war and that takes time.
Yes, Ghengis arguably was the most efficient conquerer, but a huge part of hiss success was sheer numbers and individual troop superiority, as they were probably some of the best mounted archers ever. I also do not think how Alexander acquired an army plays on his intelligence.
It doesn't, but the fact Genghis Kahn had to unite his tribes, for example, while Alexander started out with a ready-trained army, can be used to the advantage of other genrals on the list.
Maybe, but a general is a commander of an army, or an army officer of very high rank, so I think that uniting tribes would fall under diplomacy, not warfare. Now of corse diplomacy is just as important as battle in a war, but I don't think being a good diplomat proves you a smarter general.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Chocl8215
Member Avatar
Man of great chocolate
Dantos4
May 10 2012, 07:40 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 07:28 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:25 PM
I also think you can't argue the greatest artist, because it's all opinions. I, for one, hate Shakespeare's work.
you have to look at what can be objectified, for instance squee put it well when he said "if the fire extinguisher can put out a fire, then it is a good fire extinguisher" for instance; I hate twilight, but I can't argue that it isn't successful, the thing grossed what, over $200,000,000? $300,000,000? you can't say that isn't success.
I fear you have fallen into the trap of defining greatness based upon money, popularity or recognition at the time. Success financially does not necessarily deem something great.

E.g. If a man won battle after battle which he was heavily favoured in, yet that battles result in lots of popularity and financial gain as it was an important war... Does that make him greater at commanding than one guy who wins one battle where he is outnumbered by thousands, and gains no financial advantages or popularity?

How about a well known author with lots of advertising money behind her, who sells millions of books and gets a lot of money? Is she a greater writer than a man who writes a book which changes 10 peoples lives and makes no money?

Art is, in particular, very hard to define as great or greatest as it is mostly subjective.

I would also point out Leonidas or Hannibal as great generals
I agree, but what else do we have to go on? art is... tricky to define, as well as pretty much everything else, for instance, do we choose the general who changed the course of history, or the scientist who changed the course of the future? what about the author that will never truly die? or the inventor that brought the world into a new age? all of this is fairly subjective.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
I agree that Hannibal was an amazing military mind, but after the North African counter invasion and when he was defeated by Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama, He seldom attained brilliant victories like before. I also think Leonidas was given too much credit, yes he used geographic advantage and more disciplined soldiers as a major advantage, but everyone fails to remember that there were around 300 spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae and around 22,000 others (says Wikipedia, not sure about that number though). He also should have found someone other than the Athenians to handle naval battles because they suck at it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Unfortunately that is very true. The whole thing is always going to be subjective anyway: e.g. The greatest general. Someone might define it as the guy who never lost a battle, another might be someone who overcame the odds, another might be the man who conquered the most... Its all very difficult. Even intelligence is hard to define, never mind even compare based on historical fact
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
every time I refresh the page there's 50,000 more posts.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Dantos4
May 10 2012, 07:40 PM
Chocl8215
May 10 2012, 07:28 PM
Warden of Wisdom
May 10 2012, 07:25 PM
I also think you can't argue the greatest artist, because it's all opinions. I, for one, hate Shakespeare's work.
you have to look at what can be objectified, for instance squee put it well when he said "if the fire extinguisher can put out a fire, then it is a good fire extinguisher" for instance; I hate twilight, but I can't argue that it isn't successful, the thing grossed what, over $200,000,000? $300,000,000? you can't say that isn't success.
I fear you have fallen into the trap of defining greatness based upon money, popularity or recognition at the time. Success financially does not necessarily deem something great.

E.g. If a man won battle after battle which he was heavily favoured in, yet that battles result in lots of popularity and financial gain as it was an important war... Does that make him greater at commanding than one guy who wins one battle where he is outnumbered by thousands, and gains no financial advantages or popularity?

How about a well known author with lots of advertising money behind her, who sells millions of books and gets a lot of money? Is she a greater writer than a man who writes a book which changes 10 peoples lives and makes no money?

Art is, in particular, very hard to define as great or greatest as it is mostly subjective.

I would also point out Leonidas or Hannibal as great generals
Precisley why I chose Sun Tzu, his greatest victory came from using a false retreat/pincer manuever.

Also, you could also throw in two lesser known people for greatest general, in all honesty, they were strategists, but they probably did lead armies. Sima Ye and Zhuge Liang.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Poll Only

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.