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:
Locked Topic
Worst Military Mind of All History
Topic Started: Nov 30 2012, 12:42 AM (2,974 Views)
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Plus some 7,000-20,000 Thebians and Athenians.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Warden of Wisdom
Dec 4 2012, 07:41 PM
Plus some 7,000-20,000 Thebians and Athenians.
Yeah but no one cares about them. :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
infernocanuck
Member Avatar

Squee913
Dec 4 2012, 03:07 PM
infernocanuck
Dec 4 2012, 02:55 PM
This thread should be retitled: "Hindsight: Why I think people are stupid for making mistakes, now that I know that they failed."
well, anything sounds bad when you say it like that. Did you actually have anything to contribute or you just be trolling?
That wasn't trolling. That was an actual contribution, although it was succinct. Let me elaborate then.

Most of the people mentioned were actually superb military commanders, who had numerous victories, before one disaster, mistake, fate etc, etc, caused them to lose. Remember, this is suppose to be the "Worst Military Mind of All History". Not: "Napoleon made a mistake with the Russians, therefore, he's the worst military mind of all history, because now we know that he lost."

Frankly, it's the political generals, who had more money then sense, who typically ware the worst military minds. Because, they think that they can buy themselves to victory, and used horrible tactics, because they didn't know any better. Crassus is a big example.

Finally, please don't belittle my comment by suggesting it wasn't a worthy contribution. I think it's something worthy of reflection. Actually -think- about the question asked before just posting your "Generals I don't like" list.
Edited by infernocanuck, Dec 4 2012, 09:47 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Squee913
Member Avatar

infernocanuck
Dec 4 2012, 09:36 PM
Squee913
Dec 4 2012, 03:07 PM
infernocanuck
Dec 4 2012, 02:55 PM
This thread should be retitled: "Hindsight: Why I think people are stupid for making mistakes, now that I know that they failed."
well, anything sounds bad when you say it like that. Did you actually have anything to contribute or you just be trolling?
That wasn't trolling. That was an actual contribution, although it was succinct. Let me elaborate then.

Most of the people mentioned were actually superb military commanders, who had numerous victories, before one disaster, mistake, fate etc, etc, caused them to lose. Remember, this is suppose to be the "Worst Military Mind of All History". Not: "Napoleon made a mistake with the Russians, therefore, he's the worst military mind of all history, because now we know that he lost."

Frankly, it's the political generals, who had more money then sense, who typically ware the worst military minds. Because, they think that they can buy themselves to victory, and used horrible tactics, because they didn't know any better. Crassus is a big example.

Finally, please don't belittle my comment by suggesting it wasn't a worthy contribution. I think it's something worthy of reflection. Actually -think- about the question asked before just posting your "Generals I don't like" list.
I apologize. I thought you were taking a good natured jab at us. Obviously, I was wrong. Even more I agree with everything you just said.

... I'm sleeping on the couch again aren't I? :(
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
infernocanuck
Member Avatar

Well, since you apologized, Squee, You can come back to bed. :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Vosoros
Member Avatar

I vote Inferno as a dodgy military mind. I have proof...



:P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
infernocanuck
Member Avatar

It was a tactic! I was.. uhhhh.... trying to trick them into thinking I was incompetent!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
One, the march would have take days, do the rain didn't start until they had already started.
To use the example you used against me (which is frankly ignorant of how history works) were you there for the rain, or are you just regurgitating something you read from one of the most popular websites in the world with the most references gathered in one website than any other? Also, if you take a look at the quote below, in the next question, you will find more evidence to prove this statement wrong. Where did you get this assumption from? By the way? What is your source? When did I say "it was raining"? I didn't? I said it was muddy. What is your evidence that the rain started after they entered the forest?
Quote:
 
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).
" As they entered the forest they found the track narrow and muddy; according to Dio Cassius a violent storm had also arisen. He also writes that Varus neglected to send out advance reconnaissance parties." - Dio Cassius (Roman historian)Source. So clearly Dio Cassius contradicts your evidence suppositions and suggestions of what you think happened. Unless of course he was wrong, too? Or people are mis-quoting him?

Quote:
 
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?
If you are not going to accept historical evidence without me having personally read the thing then there is no hope for you.

That quote was regarding officer training, of which Hjk suggested there was none and they just made it up as they went along individually. "Vegetius emphasizes the shortcomings of the Roman Army in his lifetime. In order to do this he eulogises the Army of the early Empire. In particular he stresses the high standard of the legionaries and the excellence of the training and the officer corps." - Source - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in his De Re Militari (Concerning Military Matters). There *was* officer training and there certainly *were* tactics that would be taught to Roman citizens from birth, as my reference in a post to Hjk shows too. Unless of course you have evidence to prove this wrong or reason to doubt a man who literally wrote the book on military matters in Rome?

All I have seen so far is no evidence at all to contradict what I have said. None. Even when I prove you and Hjk to be incorrect you complain that I have used Wikipedia, which uses primary references anyway for any substantial claims. Forgetting the fact that neither have you have provided any evidence at all. Let me repeat that again, both of you have disagreed with me and discouraged the use of an excellent website, one of the most popular in the world, without providing me with any evidence at all.

If you could upload scans of the actual military book yourself and say "see, you are wrong" then I would accept it. But to provide no evidence whatsoever and then claim *I* am wrong for using secondary accounts (as we have no access to primary resources in this case) is ludicrous!

You both cannot accept that you are wrong for some reason, when I have proven you wrong on multiple accounts. I accepted I had made a mistake regarding Hitlers reasons for invading Russia, and admitted I am a little harsh on Napoleon but my opinion (as that is all it was) still stands. This is not unusual for people to admit fault, I am often forced to do so when Squee proves me wrong, as he is a much better historian than me. But to make claims such as "the Romans had no military policy at all, each commander made his own rules" or "the rain started after they went into the forest" with NO evidence at all presented to support these claims when existing evidence, or accounts of this evidence, prove these claims to be false. THEN, you questions the sources and evidence? We can only go by what evidence has been presented. And in this discussion I have easily been the largest contributor of source-based, referenced evidence.

I am very tired of this "debate" now. This is about the third or fourth debate where both you and Hjk have contradicted and/or presented straw man arguments for many of the things I say, without any evidence at all and in the face of existing evidence. I am tired of it.

The thread asked for an opinion. I gave my opinion. My opinion was challenged so I gave evidence. You then question the evidence and make strange claims without any evidence of your own, hypocritically. Why can't a fornicator just have an opinion around here & why can't you provide some evidence if mine is so unreliable.

My time on this forum has expired. Have a nice day.
Edited by infernocanuck, Dec 7 2012, 05:56 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Dec 6 2012, 09:38 AM
All I have seen so far is no evidence at all to contradict what I have said. None. Even when I prove you and Hjk to be incorrect you complain that I have used Wikipedia, which uses primary references anyway for any substantial claims. Forgetting the fact that neither have you have provided any evidence at all. Let me repeat that again, both of you have disagreed with me and discouraged the use of an excellent website, one of the most popular in the world, without providing me with any evidence at all.
OK, first off, let me state that I am guilty of using Wikipedia as a primary source, but even I know it is NOT a credible source. How do I know that. It's because every teacher I have had since middle school has warned me that Wikipedia does not work as a primary source because every asshole with a computer can get on there and change facts, and they aren't corrected until someone else gets on and types it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is always reliable.
Quote:
 
To use the example you used against me (which is frankly ignorant of how history works) were you there for the rain, or are you just regurgitating something you read from one of the most popular websites in the world with the most references gathered in one website than any other? Also, if you take a look at the quote below, in the next question, you will find more evidence to prove this statement wrong. Where did you get this assumption from? By the way? What is your source? When did I say "it was raining"? I didn't? I said it was muddy. What is your evidence that the rain started after they entered the forest?

I have a source, the problem is, I can't link you to my Military History teacher (he was explaining that the soldiers had covered themselves from the rain using their shields, which made them so heavy that they had to be discarded, which made the Germanic volley even more deadly). Also, how is asking you if you read the source you're claiming to draw knowledge from "ignorant of history". You said that Roman officers were well-trained, and I don't doubt you one bit, but when you started using specific examples without the knowledge to back it up (in this case, knowledge of how officers were trained), you will be called out on it.

Quote:
 
" As they entered the forest they found the track narrow and muddy; according to Dio Cassius a violent storm had also arisen. He also writes that Varus neglected to send out advance reconnaissance parties." - Dio Cassius (Roman historian)Source. So clearly Dio Cassius contradicts your evidence suppositions and suggestions of what you think happened. Unless of course he was wrong, too? Or people are mis-quoting him?
Fine then, I cede that it was a common practice to send out scouts, because you used a source other than Wikipedia. Also, I will admit I made an assumption based off of my limited knowledge.

Quote:
 
If you are not going to accept historical evidence without me having personally read the thing then there is no hope for you.

That quote was regarding officer training, of which Hjk suggested there was none and they just made it up as they went along individually. "Vegetius emphasizes the shortcomings of the Roman Army in his lifetime. In order to do this he eulogises the Army of the early Empire. In particular he stresses the high standard of the legionaries and the excellence of the training and the officer corps." - Source - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in his De Re Militari (Concerning Military Matters). There *was* officer training and there certainly *were* tactics that would be taught to Roman citizens from birth, as my reference in a post to Hjk shows too. Unless of course you have evidence to prove this wrong or reason to doubt a man who literally wrote the book on military matters in Rome?
No Dantos, there is no hope for you. While that quote proves they trained their officers well, it does not prove your specific assumptions on what they were told to do.
You know, things like:
Quote:
 
"following a man into a dark, wet, muddy forest, out of formation and without advanced scouts is against policy"
How do you know that this was against policy? Sure you know there was a manual, but you don't know what was in it. For all you know it could have said "Do not question your commanding officer, under any circumstances"

Quote:
 
You both cannot accept that you are wrong for some reason, when I have proven you wrong on multiple accounts. I accepted I had made a mistake regarding Hitlers reasons for invading Russia, and admitted I am a little harsh on Napoleon but my opinion (as that is all it was) still stands. This is not unusual for people to admit fault, I am often forced to do so when Squee proves me wrong, as he is a much better historian than me. But to make claims such as "the Romans had no military policy at all, each commander made his own rules" or "the rain started after they went into the forest" with NO evidence at all presented to support these claims when existing evidence, or accounts of this evidence, prove these claims to be false. THEN, you questions the sources and evidence? We can only go by what evidence has been presented. And in this discussion I have easily been the largest contributor of source-based, referenced evidence.
Really, it's almost like we're debating you. Huh, could you imagine that?

Quote:
 
The thread asked for an opinion. I gave my opinion. My opinion was challenged so I gave evidence. You then question the evidence and make strange claims without any evidence of your own, hypocritically. Why can't a Naughty boy just have an opinion around here & why can't you provide some evidence if mine is so unreliable.
You posted your opinion in the Debate Section, so people are going to debate your opinion. Not so fun when it's your opinion that is being attacked from multiple parties, now is it?
Edited by infernocanuck, Dec 7 2012, 05:58 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
I have had since middle school has warned me that Wikipedia does not work as a primary source because every asshole with a computer can get on there and change facts, and they aren't corrected until someone else gets on and types it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is always reliable.
And how reliable was your GASP BAD WORD evidence? Oh wait! You didn't present any! Obviously you have never tried to edit Wikipedia. I tried it once in school a few years ago, my editing was undone within an hour and the I.P. address of the school was banned immediately for editing purposes. Looks like you're talking balls again. "My teacher told me" isn't a valid reason unless he can provide linkable references for you.
Quote:
 
You said that Roman officers were well-trained, and I don't doubt you one bit,
And yet this was what Hjk was arguing against? What is your point? I proved him wrong.
Quote:
 
Fine then, I cede that it was a common practice to send out scouts, because you used a source other than Wikipedia. Also, I will admit I made an assumption based off of my limited knowledge.
So you just admitted using scouts WAS policy... even though you contradicted this above. Good going.
Quote:
 
No Dantos, there is no hope for you. While that quote proves they trained their officers well, it does not prove your specific assumptions on what they were told to do.
You know, things like:
Quote:
"following a man into a dark, wet, muddy forest, out of formation and without advanced scouts is against policy"
Didn't we just establish that using scouts *was* policy? Um.... wtf?
Quote:
 
How do you know that this was against policy?
You just admitted it was, above? Duhh?
Quote:
 
Really, it's almost like we're debating you. Huh, could you imagine that?
Debate: To give reason or cite evidence for or against a particular argument. Please tell me where you have given evidence or used reason? Especially when I have provided evidence to the contrary... Oh wait you didn't at all.
Quote:
 
You posted your opinion in the Debate Section, so people are going to debate your opinion. Not so fun when it's your opinion that is being attacked from multiple parties, now is it?
What is this weird stab supposed to even mean? Is this some kind of weird trollish comeback from Himmel's side? I have presented my reasoning, knowledge and evidence. All you have presented is 0 evidence backed up by 0 reasoning that has not been proven wrong by my evidence.

Clearly you are either arguing a weird point that "where is your evidence that this was policy" when I just BLEEP gave you some above and you admitted it was good evidence.... or you are trolling me. Either way that is not a debate. Give me evidence or LMFAO (But not the band) .

I resign.
Edited by infernocanuck, Dec 7 2012, 06:04 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.