| 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: |
| Worst Military Mind of All History | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2012, 12:42 AM (2,975 Views) | |
| Warden of Wisdom | Dec 3 2012, 09:48 PM Post #31 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
Muahahaha! Evil! Evil! I'd also like to hear your thoughts on their ability as military minds, though. |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Dec 4 2012, 04:16 AM Post #32 |
|
He rules
|
Spoiler: click to toggle I personally think we're going round in circles, again ![]() I never liked Napoleon, either, but that's just because he's small Didn't he actually manage to take Moscow?
|
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Dec 4 2012, 06:50 AM Post #33 |
![]()
|
Anybody with an ounce of sense would have held Arminius with at least a small amount of suspicion and wouldn't have blindly followed him into the forest. If you are told you will be betrayed and you don't listen, then you ARE betrayed it is bad judgement. Fact. Your assumption is less valid. "probably" in the quote I gave deals with probability, how likely something is to happen. I think I take knowledgeable historian's opinions on what was "more likely" to happen than your supposition on what "may have" happened. "Possibly" and "probably" are two different things. He was a bad commander for ignoring advice when being told that one of his commanders would betray him, and did nothing at all to stop Arminius, showing no hint of caution or suspicion at all. Where did I say that? Where did I say "He should have unravelled the rebellion"? I said he should unravel their plans. Based on the evidence he had, he could have easily prevented the ambush by *being cautious of Arminius* which he had every reason to do. If he was, he wouldn't have go through the forest and walked into an ambush. Again, where did I say he should confess? Nowhere. Again and again you make assumptions. I said he should have been looking for double agents, the first step to that is, oh yeah, tightening security and behaving cautiously when one of your commanders is accused of plotting to betray you. No, but you claim he wasn't terrible either. Please tell me, what did Varus do *right*? He didn't. He did everything wrong, proving he has no military mind. Um... in that part you quoted? I didn't? I was telling you what a great military mind is. Then showing you how Varus is not even great, he couldn't even do the basics. When you can't do the basics, you don't have the mind for it. The examples you provide, such as going to war in March, are cultural beliefs not actual Roman policies. When I said "following a man into a dark, wet, muddy forest, out of formation and without advanced scouts is against policy" that's because it is. How do I know this? Oops, eh, Hjk? There does happen to be an actual military handbook eh? Oh wait... I believe they also had this: "The absence of a literary method of education from Roman life was due to the fact that Rome was bereft of any national literature. The military arts were all that Rome could afford to spend time studying." Whoops! They also studied war in their schools, too! So much for that "ridiculous" idea, huh? And here we all thought each and every commander just made it all up as he went along! No wonder they were so successful, then! They actually had formal training for their commanders on, what's it called? Oh right.... military policy. Things like "Don't walk into an ambush" or "send out scouts" appear to be standard practice. So either the historical evidence I have shown is correct, and there was training and Varus went against this training/policy. Or these facts-without-evidence you have presented are true and there was an amazing intellectual convergent evolution of military tactics. I think we know which one is more likely, and has been presented with more evidence. We are going around in circles, again because I present you with arguments such as "Varus ignored Roman military policy by marching through the woods, out of formation and without scouting ahead" and you say "What?! Roman policy?! Ridiculous! They had no policy! They just made their own tactics up!" With 0 evidence to back this claim up. Then I present you with evidence and you still ignore it, like how Varus did nothing right and therefore had a terrible military mind. But no, of course not. It wasn't his fault he ignored warnings of betrayal and took no steps at all to even investigate them or protect himself against it. It wasn't his fault he marched into a forest, and hey, even if it was? "Well that doesn't make him a bad commander!". That is why we are going around in circles. Facts, evidence and logic vs. conjecture, assumption and supposition. I'm honestly starting to think this Varus guy was your boyfriend as you are defending him vigorously and stubbornly in the face of damning evidence. Seriously cannot believe you suggest that the Romans, of all people, had no standard military procedures. Obviously you have never heard of Gaius Marius. What next? Should I expect to debate whether Hitler had heard of tanks? Did Alexander never use cavalry? The Greeks never used hoplites or the phalanx? Americans have never used capitalism and Fran. Franco wasn't dictatorial? I suppose Che never fought for freedom in Cuba or Bolivia either... Edited by Dantos4, Dec 4 2012, 07:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Dec 4 2012, 09:27 AM Post #34 |
![]()
|
Just a few comments on this. One, the march would have take days, do the rain didn't start until they had already started. Were they out of formation. Well, they certainly weren't in battle order if that's what you mean. However, they were in marching order, which is usless for a fight, but effective for getting around quickly. Oh, and, do you even know if they had advance scouts? The only group I know of that acted as scouts were speculatores, and they were more like internal scouts. The only time scouts were sent out, at least according to what I know, was when a commander wanted to find a suitable battlefield. Besides, even if Varus did send out scouts, it would make sense for them to A) Miss the Germanics, who were hidden, B) Get killed by Arminus before the main body caught up, or C) See Arminius and get tricked into thinking he was stll loyal to Rome (probably the least likely, as it would be hard to explain why the auxillia had grown exponentially). Pardon my asking Dantos, but did you actually read this handbook, or are you just quoting something you found on Wikipedia? How do you know what their basic training told them to do? |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Dec 4 2012, 09:48 AM Post #35 |
|
He rules
|
Ah, I thought you meant policy as in a set of laws that every commander must obey when on campaign, my But you know what, lets just say you're right. I still think you underestimate how important Arminius was, and I still don't think Varus is THE worst, but lets just say he comes close. I can't be asked to argue anymore :p EDIT: What Random said ![]() Edited by hjk561, Dec 4 2012, 12:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Squee913 | Dec 4 2012, 09:50 AM Post #36 |
|
not to really get into the roman debate but be careful when you say things like "anyone with an ounce of sense would have..." Remember that we as a people think very differently than people of the past. While those facts may raise suspension in our minds, it is hard to know what it would have done in a roman head. Concepts such as honor and loyalty to Rome were powerful things. To many, the idea of betraying Rome was unthinkable even when faced with facts you and I would call suspicious. |
![]() |
|
| TheEdnar | Dec 4 2012, 10:40 AM Post #37 |
|
The question is more than difficult to answer, for the reason Squee already brought up. Unless the military mind/commander/whatever in question is the undisputed ruler by the grace of god or whatever, he's always influenced by those above him. Squee had the example of Vietnam. Think about Soviet Union. First Stalin purges loads of good officers from his armed forces, then keeps an iron grip on those who're left. Fudge things up, and you're shot, shipped to Siberia or something similarly awful. There's no way of telling if the officers in charge would've made a better job under a less oppressive political regime, but I'm willing to bet us Finns would be speaking Russian right now were it not for Stalin messing with his generals. So thanks there big bad for us having our independence. ![]() There's also another problem with the question. We base the worth of the commander/mind on the victories, which is intuitively correct and smart way of doing it. Victories and defeats in battle are easily quantifiable and end in a resolution which can be put to the binary scale of good/bad result. But what about everything that's not a battle? Maneuvers, retreats, rotating troops in and out of the front to keep morale up, making sure the supply chain remains unbroken, feints that allow for someone else to get the glory, ability to look at the big picture and swallow a defeat if it plays into our hands in the long run...the little things that make a set of circumstances where those great leaders of actual battles can shine. They may be the same person, who does the setting up as who does gets the glory in the end, but it's not necesarily so. Just something to think on. |
![]() |
|
| infernocanuck | Dec 4 2012, 02:55 PM Post #38 |
|
This thread should be retitled: "Hindsight: Why I think people are stupid for making mistakes, now that I know that they failed." |
![]() |
|
| Squee913 | Dec 4 2012, 03:07 PM Post #39 |
|
well, anything sounds bad when you say it like that. Did you actually have anything to contribute or you just be trolling? |
![]() |
|
| Huzzahfortimelines | Dec 4 2012, 06:21 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
I think we're judging these people far too much on theory. They don't just let random people command big militairy strategies, even in situations of desperation. For example, let's take Napoleon and the battle of Waterloo. Napoleon lost that battle with an incredibly small number. The main lesson we can learn from that battle is, is that you can think of the armies as small dots on a map, but you can easily forget that there's actual people in that army. If one person can kill 10 men, then that might be the deciding factor. If that person dies with only 2 men, that can also be a deciding factor. Probably the most evident of this, is the famous "300" spartans, against 14.000 Persians battle. While the tactics used in that battle are certainly clever, and good, without the complete loyalty of the men, they wouldn't have stood a chance. And can you really blame the Persians for underestimating their opponents? I wouldn't say so, if I would be in his position, I would just think that they're going for a suicide charge. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic » |










1:50 PM Jul 11