Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best General of All Time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Actually he didn't as he could not defeat Napoleon on his own. He had to have the support of Blucher in order to achieve it and still almost lost.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • Yes indeed, Massena, but didn't Napoleon himself rate the possession of luck as the chief qualification of a General ? Est-il heureux ?

      That quotation has been attributed has been attributed to others as well, I believe, but still, it has to be the essential qualification for every one of the Commanders listed in this thread
      Last edited by BELGRAVE; 14 Jul 20, 01:44.
      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
      Samuel Johnson.

      Comment


      • Caesar ate Gallic lunch. Napoleon ate British three meals a day.
        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
          Yes indeed, Massena, but didn't Napoleon himself rate the possession of luck as the chief qualification of a General ? Est-il heureux ?

          That quotation has been attributed has been attributed to others as well, I believe, but still, it has to be the essential qualification for every one of the Commanders listed in this thread
          And to finish the idea/quotation, Napoleon believed that 'luck' was the ability to exploit accidents.

          'A consecutive series of great actions never is the result of chance and luck; it is always the result of planning and genius...Is it because they are lucky that [great men] become great? No, but being great, they have been able to master luck...What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents.'-Napoleon
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by American87 View Post
            Caesar ate Gallic lunch. Napoleon ate British three meals a day.
            Caesar ate the knives of his countrymen and died on the floor of the Roman Senate.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • Still a better end than Nappy.
              There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                And to finish the idea/quotation, Napoleon believed that 'luck' was the ability to exploit accidents.

                'A consecutive series of great actions never is the result of chance and luck; it is always the result of planning and genius...Is it because they are lucky that [great men] become great? No, but being great, they have been able to master luck...What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents.'-Napoleon
                But some accidents are unavoidable, and one cannot always guard against them. We are all victims of "outrageous fortune" and Military Commanders are no exception. Was Napoleon unlucky when he found himself confronted with Blucher as well as Wellington at Waterloo ? Where was Grouchy ?

                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  Actually he didn't as he could not defeat Napoleon on his own. He had to have the support of Blucher in order to achieve it and still almost lost.
                  Nappy would have been a busted flush anyway. Even if the Duke had to retire, Nappy had a battered army and the Duke would have fallen back on his reserve and made another stand.

                  Nappy got what he deserved and his much-vaunted Guard was smashed before his eyes (again) by those pesky Brits and his artillery totally destroyed, losing 122 guns to the Brits and the rest to the allies.

                  The Guard was indeed made of Chocolate that melted away when it got too close to the fire.
                  Nappy had his luck...Marengo anyone?

                  The French soldier and sailor were twice those on the European mainland. The British soldier and sailor were twice the French.
                  Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 15 Jul 20, 21:52.
                  ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                  All human ills he can subdue,
                  Or with a bauble or medal
                  Can win mans heart for you;
                  And many a blessing know to stew
                  To make a megloamaniac bright;
                  Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                  The Pixie is a little shite.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                    Caesar ate the knives of his countrymen and died on the floor of the Roman Senate.
                    Napoleon ate whatever Wellington served him.
                    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                    Comment


                    • Caesar caused a civil war in Rome in the pursuit of power. Napoleon refused to do that in order to remain in power. Perhaps that is the difference between the two men.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • Both were vain glorious men that caused much destruction and death for their own place in the history books. Alexander ditto.

                        Sulla would have eaten both alive without breaking into a sweat.
                        Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                        That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                        Comment


                        • Sulla is not even rated as a Great Captain. And he is another Roman who began a civil war...
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            Sulla is not even rated as a Great Captain. And he is another Roman who began a civil war...
                            By you. Hell you kiss arse on a megalomaniac but dismiss a man that tried to restore the Roman republic. Yes he was brutal but he walked away from total power in the hope he could stop the rot. Nappy, after destroying Europe, wanted one more shot at the title and killed many a man searching for it.

                            A great general was nappy, but only in the same way Alexander was. He was gifted a system that could beat the old style, not unlike Hitler, and like Hitler he left only ashes and broken men.

                            Whatever Sulla did was for the glory of Rome. Whatever nappy did was for himself
                            Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                            That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Rojik View Post

                              By you. Hell you kiss arse on a megalomaniac but dismiss a man that tried to restore the Roman republic. Yes he was brutal but he walked away from total power in the hope he could stop the rot. Nappy, after destroying Europe, wanted one more shot at the title and killed many a man searching for it.

                              A great general was nappy, but only in the same way Alexander was. He was gifted a system that could beat the old style, not unlike Hitler, and like Hitler he left only ashes and broken men.

                              Whatever Sulla did was for the glory of Rome. Whatever nappy did was for himself
                              First, I suggest that you read the Introduction to The Mind of Napoleon by JC Herold. It is quite illuminating.

                              The idea that Napoleon was a megalomaniac is past ridiculous.

                              And your suggestion of what or whom I 'kiss' is not only ergregious, but crude in the extreme.

                              Sulla was not only brutal, but something of a degenerate personally and whose treatment of others was at least suspect.

                              How did Napoleon 'destroy' Europe? Your 'suggestions' and opinions have no basis in fact and are relying on suspect biographies such as Schom and Corelli Barnett, both of which are rife with repeated errors. Perhaps you should read the memoirs of those, such as Baron Fain, Meneval, and Marchand, along with Savary and Rapp who actually knew the man.

                              And yet another disingenuous comparison with Hitler. I have no idea what you have read on the subject, but the only conclusion from the posted nonsense is 'not much.'

                              All you're doing is repeating unfounded claims that have no basis in reality.

                              Perhaps this will help you:

                              From The Mind of Napoleon by JC Herold, xxxviii-xxxix:

                              ‘Certain external and by no means accidental similarities between Napoleon’s career and that of Hitler have blinded some men to the far more significant contrasts. Unlike Napoleon, Hitler is likely to go down in history as another Attila or Jenghiz Khan. Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents. That difference alone should be enough to discourage comparison. Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor. Hitler extolled that dark, instinctual monster which he called the People and which Taine had called the Gorilla; Napoleon had seen the monster in action during the Reign of Terror, and he preferred to perish rather than invoke its power. Napoleon, when he began his career, embodied the hopes of sane and noble minds (not least among them Beethoven’s); Hitler began and ended surrounded by a handful of psychopaths. But why insist on the contrast? Perhaps there is no difference between them but the difference between the Age of Reason and the Age of Hatred. It’s a substantial difference.’

                              ‘Still, since great men have caused much breakage of late and since that breakage is becoming increasingly complete, the question has arisen in many men’s minds whether the world would not gladly dispense with great men. Napoleon himself wondered about this. ‘The future will tell us whether it would not have been better if neither I nor Rousseau had ever lived,’ he said over Rousseau’s grave. Bus as soon as we condemn great men, we condemn exceptional men. Without great men, we have only mediocre men, and if there had never been anything but mediocre men, we would still be half-apes. If Hitler is to be condemned merely because he was not a law-abiding citizen, content with making money, raising a family, owning a car, and living and letting live, then Hitler should not be condemned-or else a Galileo, a Mozart, or even a Gandhi would have to be condemned, too. Nor can Hitler be condemned as a great man, because he was not a great man. Things are not so simple, and men must be judged as individuals, not as members of categories according to the degree of their departure from a dubious norm. It is difficult to see how Hitler, as an individual, can be judged as anything but a diseased catalyst of a mass disease. Nothing positive appears on the ledger. Napoleon, on the other hand, in his historic action left positive achievements behind him. Unlike Hitler, he left Europe not in ruins but brought up to date. Even when his genius failed his purpose, its nature was such that it cooperated willy-nilly with the constructive forces of history; the unification of Germany and of Italy, the spread of democratic liberalism may not have been in accord with his intentions, but they most certainly owed much to his action. And as a myth and a symbol he pushed back the limits of human capabilities. It may be a costly process for humanity to produce Napoleons, but if humanity should ever cease to produce them it would be a sign that its energies are exhausted. In order to turn its Napoleons to better enterprises than conquest and war, humanity first would have to turn away from war. To prove Napoleon wrong humanity must change.’

                              If you would like more supporting documentation I would be more than happy to supply it from a variety of credible source material, both primary and secondary.
                              Last edited by Massena; 17 Jul 20, 08:50.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                                It is difficult to see how Hitler, as an individual, can be judged as anything but a diseased catalyst of a mass disease. Nothing positive appears on the ledger. Napoleon, on the other hand, in his historic action left positive achievements behind him. Unlike Hitler, he left Europe not in ruins but brought up to date.
                                If you would like more supporting documentation I would be more than happy to supply it from a variety of credible source material, both primary and secondary.
                                Which is lies and BS. Countless cities and villages were destroyed by the Napoleonic wars. Millions of lives were lost.
                                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X