Darwin or Boudica. If you need an explaination for either of these then you either don't know me or don't know who they are.
History.
- Thread starter lwm3398
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, he was called Unconditional Surrender my his men in the Civil War because of the difficult terms he forced on the confederate losers.Flap Jack452 said:
But he was a softy. He hated blood and war. After particularly gruesome battles he'd retreat to his tent and cry. /plagiarize.
Bruce Willis.
Honestly, he is one of my favorite actors. He's one of the ones that has aged well, too.
Plus, he played John McClane. Yippie Kai Yay, mother-f**ker.
Honestly, he is one of my favorite actors. He's one of the ones that has aged well, too.
Plus, he played John McClane. Yippie Kai Yay, mother-f**ker.
Leonardo Da Vinci. So far beyond his time, developed hundreds (?) of inventions including ones that were comprised of future technology or would need future technology to power them. He also furthered the course of medicine in a significant way, not to mention his artistic skills.
Militarily I'd have to say Hannibal. Took elephants over the French Alps and proceeded to woop the Romans' asses, previously thought to be the most dominant military force in the world, for years (218-201 BC was the length of the Punic Wars I think). I consider him personally as tied greatest strategist in history (alongside Ghengis Khan).
Militarily I'd have to say Hannibal. Took elephants over the French Alps and proceeded to woop the Romans' asses, previously thought to be the most dominant military force in the world, for years (218-201 BC was the length of the Punic Wars I think). I consider him personally as tied greatest strategist in history (alongside Ghengis Khan).
Yeah but in fairness he did feck all after Cannae; mainly just sat around in Southren Italy. I would not really rate him as one of the greatest strategists. Fair enough his intial attack was pretty astounding and his forced march from Spain to Italy. Also, I do not see why people make such a huge deal out of the elephants; he had something like 40 of them and nearly all of them had died while crossing the Alps, not to mention half his men. The battle of Cannae was a fantastic victory, but it was as much down to Roman mistakes as Hannibal's genius. The General Varro was too eger to be the one to defeat Hannibal, and so, walked himself into a trap. Had he took more caution Rome might have won the day. None the less, it was one of Rome's biggest defeat, that can not be taken away form Hannibal. However, by this stage he had backed himself in to a dead end in Southren Italy. Thus, his victory was phyric. There were at least two ocassions were Hannibal could have, at the very least, assulted the city of Rome, yet he failed to do so, and thus doomed himself to defeat in Italy. For those reasons and more, IMO, he is not one of history's greatest strategist.Osloq said:
While the General was over confident and foolish for falling into a trap, the mark of a good general is making your opponent do just that. We'll never know solidly enough to give Hannibal full credit but I'm also inclined to believe that he would have an alternate strategy if the Romans had been more measured in their battle plans.HerrBobo said:
If I remember correctly he didn't lost that large a percentage of men crossing the Alps although the elephants were decimated. Even though he had 40 elephants he still managed to bring 2 over which proved devastating in combat and got them into a location behind enemy lines where their effectiveness would be that much more telling. Crossing the Alps with an army wasn't just considered to be hard, it was considered to be impossible which is why it's one of the most lauded military events of the era.
As for his sojourn in Southern Italy, the problem was he ran out of troops and Carthage refused to send more. He was stuck there because attrition had crippled his force and in those days you needed an overwhelming force to take over any city, add on to that that it's the capital so there'll be the best defences, troops and weapons. He would have to have gathered enough food for the siege, build weapons and cordon off the city so that they couldn't get reinforcements from another city which is hard to do when you're constantly under the threat of guerilla warfare or the troops from inside sallying out. He could have assaulted the city but it would have been an empty sacrifice of troops with nothing gained. The longer he held out, the higher the chance of reinforcements from Carthage.
While it's your personal opinion that he's not the greatest ever, his catalogue of victories (not only over the Romans) and his ability to improvise a plan in the heat of battle mark him as one to me.
Godwin's law, definetly Hitler. I'd be intereested in finding out why he was so fixated on destroying the jews. Was the church very vocal about their anti-semetism or was it something else? Credit must be given for his ability to bring Germany out of their recession.
Ah! Another student of ancient history! Fantastic!Osloq said:
Good points about why he did not take Rome. If I remember right he had no seige equipment with him either, which is not to say he could not have built some. If I remember right though, after the battle of Cannae Rome have very few troops in the city as the had all be snet to that battle. His own generals belived that he could have taken the city. I am sure you have heard the quote by Maharbal. If you look at Hannibal's seige of Saguntum, that was one of the sparks for the war, it is my belife that he was not good at, or did not like seige warfare. After all that, relatively, minor city took him months to crack. IMO, he could have, maybe, taken Rome but he would not have held it long term.
For me, the fact is that he had a chance to assault and, maybe, take Rome; which in turn, may, have ended the war. He did not do it. The truth is that while Cannae was his greatest victory the Romans were able to contain him in Southren Italy ever after it; while he was still more then an annoynce, the real danger had passed.
This may have been very diffrent if Carthage had sent him more troops, but it was not to be.
Hannibal biggest danger to Italy since the Celtic tribes sacked Rome c387BC. I belive that part of the reason of his fame is that the Romans themselvs belived he was the the biggest danger that the Republic had ever faced. IMO, the bigger fear Rome had was the alliance between Hannibal and Philp V of Macedonian. While it never came to anything the Romans were very fearful of Macedonian troops landing in Italy. Remember that as Rome was fighting the 2nd Punic war in Spain she was also fighting Hannibal in Italy and Philp in Macedonia. The armies of the Republic were very thin on the ground. Had the Carthagians and the Macedonians really worked together things might have gone a diffrent way. So, Rome's fear of Hannibal was double; the damage he did do and the damage he could have done. This, above all, IMO, is why he is rememberd as one of Rome's greatest foes. At the same time, this is why he is not "on my list."
Pretty much this. He must have had the biggest brass ones on the planet to charge at Nazis with a longbow and a claymore.Radeonx said:
