Name an admired historical figure.Explain why.

Look, Napolean went on a crazy expansion fest shortly after naming himself Emperor of France. He attacked a lot of countries, and countries started to realise the danger the French posed. He did himself in, he had too many enemies. That's why he was crushed those two times.

Alright folks.

Milo, you know that's wrong. By the same token, Nazi Germany was defeated "unfairly".

Let's not have this spin out of control. Next entry please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

Alright folks.

Milo, you know that's wrong. By the same token, Nazi Germany was defeated "unfairly".

Let's not have this spin out of control. Next entry please?

---

Not exactly. Look at the invasion of Russia. By Milo's reckoning, the Axis cheated because they hit the Russians while they were in a poor defensive position, because the German troops were better, because they had better vehicles, and because the Soviets had very few trained officers. The Soviets cheated because they had massive numerical advantages, were prepared for the Russian winter, had many, many more artillery and rocket units, and were supported by partisans.

Both sides were "cheating", but this is natural in war. Trying to beat your opponent in any way is not unfair.

Go scientist.

You're a scientist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ∆nonymous

Not exactly. Look at the invasion of Russia. By Milo's reckoning, the Axis cheated because they hit the Russians while they were in a poor defensive position, because the German troops were better, because they had better vehicles, and because the Soviets had very few trained officers. The Soviets cheated because they had massive numerical advantages, were prepared for the Russian winter, had many, many more artillery and rocket units, and were supported by partisans.

Both sides were "cheating", but this is natural in war. Trying to beat your opponent in any way is not unfair.

---

Yes, yes yes... Like the man said (McArthur I believe), in war there's no substitute for victory. To which I might add that the end justifies the means.

Good.

Next entry please?

Patton then.. does he need explanation? There is even a book turning his strategy into a business model..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob19991

Patton then.. does he need explanation? There is even a book turning his strategy into a business model..

---

I like it Bob. Care to broaden your point of view?

Well, he was the only Allied commander the Axis actually felt a threat from, he successfully lead many attacks, had the famous, which was really several, outbursts at troops, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milonius

You're a scientist?

---

∆nonymous is. I'm just an econ major.

In my opinion most awesome conquerors lose in the end because of greed. Because of that they tend not to know when to stop and not think long enough before proceeding since they think they will win anyway. You will always meet someone just a bit better at tactics.