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 (4,207 Views)
Squee913
Member Avatar

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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
I also think you can't argue the greatest artist, because it's all opinions. I, for one, hate Shakespeare's work.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Chocl8215
Member Avatar
Man of great chocolate
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.
to be fair, Alexander was given a vastly smaller army than his opponents, his tactics had to be the best.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Chocl8215
Member Avatar
Man of great chocolate
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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Squee913
Member Avatar

You know, I once wrote a paper on Hitler as a military strategist. In the paper I had to first define what made a good military leader. I listed common accepted rules of war that a good leader would follow. Might still have that paper somewhere....
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

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.
I can barely wrap my head around it either. I choose him, though, because we still read the plays as part of the basic high school curriculum. Also because I don't particulary like Rowling's works, and I don't know who the other author is.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Squee913
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"
Did I say that? :blink: damn... that's a good line.... go me B-)
Edited by Squee913, May 10 2012, 07:29 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, 07:24 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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Squee913
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.
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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
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.
No, I believe Twilight is an amazing series because of its success (I hate it too). But I believe success is different than actual artistic ingenuity. Art can't be given a price, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks its worth that much. Unless you believe art is only as good as the general populace believes it is, which I do not.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Poll Only

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.