logic Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 As a moralist, and propagandist. Hands Down Hitler. No matter what anyone says, he was the best at getting his troops, and people motivated. Although, his military decisions at times were not the greatest, he made his soldiers fierce fighters. And, his military generals were top notch. He did run Germany very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 As a moralist, and propagandist. Hands Down Hitler. No matter what anyone says, he was the best at getting his troops, and people motivated. Although, his military decisions at times were not the greatest, he made his soldiers fierce fighters. And, his military generals were top notch. He did run Germany very well. Hitler was moral? The Holocaust says open your freakin' eyes, MGK. Hitler was a despicable, steaming pile of sh!t who was responsible for the murder of 6 000 000 innocent Jews. He ran his "Empire" on fear, bullying, intimidation, propaganda and murder. Edit: Plus approximately 5 000 000 other "non-Jewish" civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Ok I will give you that Khan had one great battle where he was present and leading his men. ATG had five, so lets see some more examples of what Ghengis Khan did. Not his sons or his generals but he himself out on the field. To me it's not the same if you are sending generals out to get victories for you instead of getting victories yourself. Never mind playing an instrumental part in it. When I have time I'm going to read up a bit more on GK. To be continued... He was there for most of the big battles of the Khwarezmia campaign off the top of my head, and also the many battles that saw him beat the unite the other Mongol clans. However it's not too important if he was personally present or not as it was his strategy and system that his forces were operating under, and the awesome Mongol communication network meant that he could command forces at a great distance by the standards of the era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 When I have time I'm going to read up a bit more on GK. In the Dec 1996 issue of National Geographic there is a great 18 page feature on Genghis Khan and the Mongol army. It's a very entertaining read. http://ngm.nationalg...an/edwards-text My vote goes to Genghis Khan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of Tom Joad Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Hannibal was decent general whose myth was exaggerated by Roman historians because it would be shameful to admit that he almost brought the mighty Roman Empire to its knees. It also was perpetuated by Scipio Africanus to further his reputation and political interests. Remember, everything we know about Hannibal comes from Roman sources. Alexander is remarkable, no doubt, but the fact that his conquests exist in antiquity is a minus--albeit, that's not his fault. Also, Alexander inherited the brilliant Macedonian phalanx fighting force that was introduced and perfected by his father, Phillip. It was Philip that brought all of Greece under Macedonian control, and had he not been assassinated, there is an argument to be made that perhaps we would remember the name of Philip, and not Alexander. Julius Caesar was a good general, and certainly better than many of his contemporaries, however, he comes from a period of Roman history where there was several excellent commanders (Crassus, Pompey, Mark Antony, Octavian, etc. were all capable generals from the same era). Caesar's successes, like the previously mentioned contemporaries, was due to the fact that Roman military was at its pinnacle in terms of quality, discipline, and overall effectiveness in this era, which really had little to do with him. So, I think it's a toss up between Genghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte. Genghis' use of the compound bow and mounted archer revolutionized warfare in that period. They steamrolled a very powerful Chinese empire with relative ease, and took control over a significant chunk of Asia and Europe. He was known for being merciless, and using terror to coerce cities into surrendering. My vote goes for Napoleon, though. He did not have an technological advances on his side, like Genghis, nor did he inherit a excellent military force, like Caesar or Alexander. Indeed, in his time, the Prussia and Austria had a better trained military forces, and England had a vastly superior navy. The French military, prior to him taking over, was a poorly-trained disaster actually from the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Also, in terms of weapon technology, the was considerable parody between most of the European powers; there was no single weapon that Napoleon possessed that gave him an advance over his opponents. In battle, Napoleon often faced an alliance of European powers, and still he managed to out maneuver them, time and time again. If it was not for Napoleon, there would be no French victories. Period. It was his intellect and military prowess that determined wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Ok I will give you that Khan had one great battle where he was present and leading his men. ATG had five, so lets see some more examples of what Ghengis Khan did. Not his sons or his generals but he himself out on the field. To me it's not the same if you are sending generals out to get victories for you instead of getting victories yourself. Never mind playing an instrumental part in it. When I have time I'm going to read up a bit more on GK. To be continued... The problem with ATG is that it is so long ago that many sources were written after the fact. A great man who became a legendary one after his death. A horse so wild and fierce that nobody could tame.... yet a teenager was simply able to do it. While I don't doubt he played an active role in battles, I really doubt he was leading the vanguard to attack the enemies. It just simply doesn't make any tactical sense to have your ruler and commander in harms way where a random arrow can just take him out regardless of his combat prowess. This isn't LOTR or D&D where your main guy has a +5 sword, 18 to strength/dexterity and a suit of dragon scale armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 ATG VS. GK Lets just agree to disagree. Only way to settle this is a deadliest warrior show down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGokou Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 So your theory is that a feigned retreated with Calvary archers would decimate Alexander's forces? For one Ghengis Khan would most likely not even be present at the battle, but only one of his generals. Also I can point out that nearly every battle faught by ATG he was at a numerical disadvantage yet was still victorious. Now suddenly one of the greatest leaders in history falls for one of the oldest tricks in the book and chases enemy Calvary (numerically superior) 200km? How about Khans forces being shocked by more aggressive tactics and an enemy well prepared, intelligent and not retreating like the others they have encountered. Not to mention not having their key leader Khan present and leading their Calvary in the battle instead of back home with the women. The Mongols were great raiders but I have yet to read one battle where the enemy was as well prepared as the forces ATG faced off with. In fact I would say Khans generals would even have trouble beating the persian armies that ATG easily dispatched. ATG also had experience with horse archers; 'Alexander started the battle by sending horse archers to shower the Indian left cavalry wing. Then, he led the charge against the weakened Indian wing.' From; http://en.m.wikipedi...lties#section_1 Again as posted before ATG has 5 battles documented in the highest casualties section and was present in every one. Khan was only present in one of his battles against an enemy who couldn't even protect their own supply lines. Not mention ATG often adapted his tactics against what he was facing, such as when the Macedonians fought chariots. They provoked the chariots into charging their lines and opened a gap allowing the chariots inside the formation - surrounding and completely anhiliating them. ATG was the perfect military leader I haven't read anything that really comes close. I'm looking though closer at Khan and so far nothing stands out. Please feel free to link me somewhere because I don't Khan himself engaging an enemy such as ATG did. I think we have to base this argument on the fact that the leader doesn't have to be present. It's the systems/strategy that they develop and apply that is more important. Also like someone mentioned, Alex's father had already developed the phalanx which from my understanding was their main fighting force so can't give him credit there. Also the feigned retreat was deadly for Khan because of his superior cavalry that could outrun anything at the time. Khan's cavalry vs Alexander's cavalry ->Khan's cavalry wins hands down. Soldiers trained from birth to horse back ride AND shoot bows from a moving horse with superior numbers. Tell me how a mostly infantry army can fight that in an open field? So yes, even if Alexander didn't fall for the trick, he would still get slaughtered from afar by the arrows raining down on his infantry. The only option he has is to chase with his cavalry and like I've already said, Khan's cavalry beats ATG's cavalry hands down. Tell me, assuming you were ATG what would you have done to stop this knowing Khan's tactics? Pretty hard to stop something that you can't even chase down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Hitler was moral? The Holocaust says open your freakin' eyes, MGK. Hitler was a despicable, steaming pile of sh!t who was responsible for the murder of 6 000 000 innocent people. He ran his "Empire" on fear, bullying, intimidation, propaganda and murder. Not that is changes anything about AH or the Nazi regime, but that's a pretty debatable number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Not that is changes anything about AH or the Nazi regime, but that's a pretty debatable number Just the standard one that I've been using for 30 years as a student and as a teacher. I Googled the numbers before I posted and found a range between 5.7M and 7M on 39 of the first 40 sites that appeared. Those numbers jive with what I was taught and what I teach. One site, http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/holocaust.htm, (clearly Anti-Semetic) stated that between 150 000 and 300 000 Jews were murdered. Let's not forget about the other approximately 5M "non-Jewish" civilians murdered by the Nazis. The math works out to an estimate of 11 000 000 civilians offed by Hitler. Shocking. What horrible sum do you think Hitler and the Nazis are responsible for, stawns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I'm going to put a vote in for General Georgy Zhukov, and let me explain why. This highly decorated and controversial Soviet general had a massive impact on the course of history in my opinion. And he achieved this via extraordinary tactics. At the battle at Khalkhin Gol, General Khukov managed to destroy Japanese forces before the official start of the Second World War. As a result, the Japanese Empire was arguably terrified at the prospect of fighting a land war with the Soviets. If this were not the case - that is if Khalkhin Gol did not happen - the Japanese would not have looked to the Pacific to expand their Empire; the Americans would not have been drawn into the war so early; the Soviets would not have been able to reinforce their Western Front with over a million troops; the USSR would have fallen; the UK may have fallen and the Cold War, as we knew it, may never had occurred. I know there are a lot of ifs in that projection - but I am of the firm belief that Pearl Harbor would not have happened and Japan would have assisted in a two front war on the Soviets. Anyways, I doubt General Zhukov is one of the greatest, but I figured I'd take this chance to mention his name - as most likely have never heard of him. And that is, in part, because Stalin was so crazy. Another amazing fact about the man was that he was able to survive under that regime. Usually if you had talent you were purged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Hitler and Stalin should not be included in the conversation. They were both regressive in terms of military tactics. Simply put, the USSR would have been much stronger with a different, less paranoid leader - and the Germans may have won the War if Hitler was listened to his generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master 112 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Hitler was moral? The Holocaust says open your freakin' eyes, MGK. Hitler was a despicable, steaming pile of sh!t who was responsible for the murder of 6 000 000 innocent Jews. He ran his "Empire" on fear, bullying, intimidation, propaganda and murder. Edit: Plus approximately 5 000 000 other "non-Jewish" civilians. mor·al·ist (môr-lst, mr-) n. 1. A teacher or student of morals and moral problems. 2. One who follows a system of moral principles. 3. One who is unduly concerned with the morals of others. To be fair, just because someone doesn't believe in or adhere to the same moral standards as you do doesn't mean they're not a moralist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 mor·al·ist (môr-lst, mr-) n. 1. A teacher or student of morals and moral problems. 2. One who follows a system of moral principles. 3. One who is unduly concerned with the morals of others. To be fair, just because someone doesn't believe in or adhere to the same moral standards as you do doesn't mean they're not a moralist. You are so right, One one two. Based on his morals, Hitler was certainly a moralist, by definition. Many, many people tend to disagree with Hitler's morals and values, though. Many Germans disagreed with Hitler's morals during his reign, but, were too frightened to speak their minds. People who challenged or disagreed with a Nazi or Nazi morals were often killed on the spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 im going to have to go with hitler here. he succeeded in taking pretty much a lot of Europe. Yes he made some mistakes and tried to expand/rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 im going to have to go with hitler here. he succeeded in taking pretty much a lot of Europe. Yes he made some mistakes and tried to expand/rush. Why? Because he managed to conquer a large amount of territory in rapid fashion, only to lose it in an even faster manner? He took sound military tactics and butchered them to the point whereby he saw fit to kill himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master 112 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 You are so right, One one two. Based on his morals, Hitler was certainly a moralist, by definition. Many, many people tend to disagree with Hitler's morals and values, though. Many Germans disagreed with Hitler's morals during his reign, but, were too frightened to speak their minds. People who challenged or disagreed with a Nazi or Nazi morals were often killed on the spot. I don't dispute any of that. I also believe Hitler's actions were despicable beyond words. It simply seemed like you were misinterpreting MGK's post and painted him as some sort of Nazi-admirer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I don't dispute any of that. I also believe Hitler's actions were despicable beyond words. It simply seemed like you were misinterpreting MGK's post and painted him as some sort of Nazi-admirer -- I wanted to clear the air. Thanks, 112... and sorry to MGK if I caused you any grief, dude. I rarely even name-call let alone accuse people of being Nazi-admirers! Sometimes, I'm not so succinct with my opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master 112 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Thanks, 112... and sorry to MGK if I caused you any grief, dude. I rarely even name-call let alone accuse people of being Nazi-admirers! Sometimes, I'm not so succinct with my opinions. I also apologize if I could've handled it any better/should've stayed out of it entirely. Anywho, back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Jesus - he defeated satan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.