no it doesn't, it just means you didn't see it. Mine were long so i understand.
Printable View
no it doesn't, it just means you didn't see it. Mine were long so i understand.
Captain Lawrence Edward Grace Oates (17 March 1880 – 16 March 1912)
This man's courage and self sacrifice has always been an inspiration to me
For anyone who doesn't know brief summary taken from Wikpedia below
(was an English Antarctic explorer. He was often referred to by the nickname "Titus Oates" after the historical figure. Oates is known for his honorable suicide when, aware his ill-health was compromising his companions' lives, he told them "I am just going outside and may be some time" before walking out into a blizzard.)
The first of many:
Isaac Asimov, one of the 3 generators of the Science Fiction genre, along with Arthur C. Clarke, and the 3rd, who I have not yet read any of his books..
Asimov wrote the I, Robot series, in which the famous 3 laws of robotics are written, and the Foundation series, in which the Zeroth law was added, and the basic failing-empire, new seed was started.
How can one be defeated unfairly? There are no cheat codes- and back then, there were no rules- for war. You can defeat someone sneakily, or unethically, or underhandedly, but not unfairly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milonius
I admit the question occured to me as well... This was war, as in "All's fair in...".Quote:
Originally Posted by ∆nonymous
I'm sure Milo will take the opportunity to expand on this.
First, during the Battle of Leipzig (AKA the Battle of Nations), he was defeated by the GIANT coalition of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Sardinia. It was 430,000 vs only about 200,000. He fled back to Paris, and they chased him.
Second, during the Battle of Waterloo, just as Napoleon was about to win, Gebhard von Blucher came in and reinforced the Duke of Wellington, allowing him to win.
I call those two losses unfair.
Because he was outnumbered? If he couldn't deal with being outnumbered, he couldn't have been much of a commander. Troops attacking a well-entrenched, well-supported enemy take losses at a 3:1 ratio. If he had made good tactical decisions, as his supposed military genius should have allowed him to do, he would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milonius
I always agree with you for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by ∆nonymous
Probably because I'm always right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth X
That is it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ∆nonymous
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ∆nonymous
Good.
Next entry please?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by bob19991
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.
∆nonymous is. I'm just an econ major.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milonius
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.
What I like of PATTON is, he was never a political naif. Anonymous is right in praising ROMMEL'S military prowess, but the fact remains that he realized VERY late what kind of regime, and man, he was working for. A mistake PATTON would never have made.
And also, Patton was prepared to open the western front on Japan by conquering Russia, and if allowed, he probably would be the first to do so, IMO.
Alright folks...
BEETHOVEN.
And I'm afraid I cannot give much in the way of explanation.
Just listen to the music.
Queen Elizabeth I
She was a tough woman in a world of men. She brought England off her knees to make it one of the most powerful empires in the world.
Plato was the teacher of Aristotle but he was not the one forced to die for his beliefs for self administered poison. That would be Socrates who was in turn the teacher of Plato. Aristotle was the last of this well known Greek triumvirate and one of my personal favorite historical figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Solomon
He did many things- writing books, coming up with the Hippocratic Oath, philosophizing but to me what marks him as a truly great man is that he spent his life teaching. Following in the footsteps of Plato and Socrates he founded his own school, the Lyceum, and was nearly killed for his scientific beliefs much as Socrates and Galileo.
But all of this falls short of what I see as his single most world changing accomplishment. One of his earliest students was a young Macedonian by the name of Alexander. We remember this student today as Alexander the Great. I have always been fascinated by military strategists and tacticians and I think it incredible that this man who left such an indelible mark on the world due to his keen mind would leave an even greater mark for training the mind of the most powerful leader of the ancient world.
V.P.
I understand your point and agree but...
Aristotle also postulated "natural slaves" and the "natural inferiority of women".
That pretty much damns him in my eyes.
He said that? Whoa, I don't like him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
Damn it. Double post. Sorry.
Yes. He did.
Socrates also believed men and women to be equal by the way.
That guy is cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
Sometimes we place our historical figures on pedestals and forget that they were still just humans. In the case of Aristotle, I already knew all of that as I wrote a lengthy essay about him for my college class. Despite his flaws (which were as common and deplorable as any man's) I still venerate him as a figure worthy of respect. I believe it important that we place our ancestors, heroes, villains and leaders within the historical context of their era. In this vein I can appreciate the founding fathers of my country as brilliant visionary statesmen and yet still condemn many of them as the owners of slaves. A man (or woman) of our modern age could not be given this same leeway because they know better. Just my opinion anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
V.P.
The more I know you, the more I like you!
Your point is very well put. I truly like the way you think about this. Bravo.
I'll just throw in a name and then you lot can find out who he was and what he did:
Piet Pieterszoon Hein (or Pieter Pietersen Heyn)
*blink blink* Wow, thanks, that's a truly lovely compliment :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
well thank you for clearing that up. I knew one was a teacher and the other a student who went on, but i had forgotten about the last guy Socrates. They all made contributions to the Greek times.Quote:
Originally Posted by vesuvanprincess
I want to come back to this one. Asimov was a superb writer and the way he managed to tie-up the different strands of his story-telling in his last books was something to behold. His non-fiction works, mostly vulgarisations of scientific thought and research, was always entertaining, thought-provoking and crystal clear. We are legions missing the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob19991
Bob, was the third name you didn't mention Robert A. Heinlein by any chance?
I think that that's completely untrue. Rommel never commanded in the Russian theater of war, and never heard of the terrible atrocities that were committed there, as well as the execution of German Jews. What if the U.S.A., while Patton was fighting in North Africa, began a massive genocidal campaign against German- and Japanese-Americans? If they kept it under wraps, he would have been hard-pressed to have learned anything about it, just as in Rommel's situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildor
Also, Patton was admittedly rather stubborn and fiercely patriotic. If he had been in Rommel's position, he would never have believed that such a thing was possible, and he would ignore any entreaties to help assassinate F.D.R.
In short, what you said is hero worship, and ignorant of the facts.
I really do like this thread.
There are several figures I admire in history a great deal.
Alexander the Great, for his strategies on the battle field. He was the first person to make the chariot obsolete on the battle field when faced with foot soldiers.
Ghenghis Khan, for several reasons. The biggest reason, his view on the world. He viewed every nation as his and all people within those nations as his children. He went to war to conquer them because as he once said, his children were being obstinate.
Nikola Tesla, he was far ahead of his time. Aside from his work on electromagnetism and electromechanical engineering, Tesla contributed in varying degrees to the establishment of robotics, remote control, radar and computer science, and to the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics, and theoretical physics. In 1943, the Supreme Court of the United States credited him as being the inventor of the radio. A few of his achievements have been used, with some controversy, to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories, and early New Age occultism.
When he died, everything to do with him was confiscated by the government. Even his clothes. The man had inventions that were far ahead of his time, to this day they can't be figured out. Truly the greatest overlooked man in history.
Everyone forgot, or at least the drinking age group....
Nancy Whiskey, she is highly influential, is she not?
And @ Wildor, probably
And I would second Tesla, the harmonic frequency machine is awesome...
And also add Thomas ap Catesby Jones, as he allowed the Battle of New Orleans to happen as it did, as he delayed the British fleet long enough to let Future President Andrew Jackson fortify the city, and create a name for himself, propelling his political career, so without
Thomas ap Catesby Jones, Jackson may not have become president.
I was touched by this. Specially since I first read about Scott's last expedition when I was thirteen, just the right age to fantasize for weeks on end about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TPUK
This gives me an idea however.
At the time, a debate raged about who was the greatest explorer between the heroic Scott and the pragmatic Amunsend.
Opinions?