24-09-2004 18:17									#391
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker So how come the Romans couldn't beat them?

They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory.
But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had.
Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them.
Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new.
Also, the principate system was one of the reasons.
The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him.
Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to.
But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

	24-09-2004 18:47									#392
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Parthia wasn't all that strong

Trajan was doing a good job, until the Parthians and the Jews of the Messopotamia financed a Jewish revolt in North Africa that forced Trajan to withdraw in order to suppress it. Trajan never made it, dying of some illness on the road back.

But it is interesting that the Romans never did well against the Parthians or the Persians until Heraclius virtually destroyed them, leaving them wide open for Arab conquest.

	24-09-2004 18:54									#393
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Heresson They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory. But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had. Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them. Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new. Also, the principate system was one of the reasons. The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him. Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to. But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

I think the potential rise of rival commanders was THE major reason why Rome did not expand in a big way after Augustus. Still, it is remarkable how many civil wars the Romans suffered after that.

I still think, though, that Caesar would have conquered Parthia had he not been assassinated. Rome was the very Zenith of her power and had perhaps her most ablest general ever as Dictator. Parthia would have been lucky to survive.

	25-09-2004 08:08									#394
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Heresson They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory. But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had. Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them. Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new. Also, the principate system was one of the reasons. The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him. Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to. But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

One of the reasons they couldn't expand anymore was because of the resource drain they had by fighting Persia all of the time. It was the original Cold War except this time they actually fought head to head.

During other times it was a similar Soviet-NATO fight where they fought each other through proxy wars.

	25-09-2004 08:26									#395
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Nah, the Empire had innumerable resources. If it really tried, it'd destroy Persia in a week

	25-09-2004 09:58									#396
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Heresson They just weren't determined. The reason Romans were so effective was that they were continuing the war up to the final victory. But since August' not so catastrophic after all defeat in Teutoburg forest, the attitude has changed. The only earlier not vassalised lands that were conquered were Agri Decumates, Britania, small part of Mesopotamia and Dacia. That's very little. Tiberius himself calimed that August forbid in his testament new conquests, and ordered just to keep what they had. Even if some emperor was leading conquests (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), their successors were resigning of them. Romans were now enough rich of what they had, they didn't have to conquer nothing new. Also, the principate system was one of the reasons. The emperor did not tolerate any magnificent conquests or victories made by his gouvernors. He was afraid they could get too powerful and pose a threat to him. Roman Empire could expand if it wanted to. But it didn't - and it was one of the reasons it's fallen.

Well, in addition to Ted's observation on the resource drain a war with Parthia would cause, I guess there were never enough legions on the Parthian border in the first place to attempt a wholesale or even partial invasion of Parthia.

Secondly, as opposed to other borders of the Roman Empire (with only barbarians to face), on the eastern border there was a rival Empire with an Empire's resources and logistics. This changed the whole picture. Therefore, I'm skeptical about whether Rome would be able to thoroughly conquer Parthia if tried to. It sure would be able to win battles, but I think they would not be able to reach India at all.

But I agree to your general observation that there was less and less wish for adventures on the side of Romans anyway as time progressed and a balance was established in the east.

	25-09-2004 14:12									#397
	Got spare money?

The Romans did make attempts to take on the Parthians but they lost badly and that meant moving legions from the barbarian frontiers. The Barbarian tribes were always seen as Rome's main threat, and eventually destroyed Rome.

So in the end the Romans decided that having a strong empire on their Eastern frontier was more an asset than a threat.

	25-09-2004 16:49									#398
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse The Romans did make attempts to take on the Parthians but they lost badly and that meant moving legions from the barbarian frontiers. The Barbarian tribes were always seen as Rome's main threat, and eventually destroyed Rome. So in the end the Romans decided that having a strong empire on their Eastern frontier was more an asset than a threat.

Agreed. Plus, you could actually make treaties with them that would hold. The Germans, in contrast, always behaved like wild animals.

	25-09-2004 17:00									#399
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It's not always like that. I've read several late Roman chronicles and Romans acted in the most despicable (if that's the correct word) way towards them.

	25-09-2004 22:10									#400
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yes, it is well known that the Romans would invade German territories, and rape and pillage to their heart's content.

	25-09-2004 22:18									#401
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Raping and pillaging!

	25-09-2004 22:34									#402
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Raping and pillaging!

Spoken like a true Communist.

	25-09-2004 22:34									#403
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

No, no. I'm in Roman solider mode now.

	25-09-2004 22:45									#404
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No, really.
Some stories.
the Romans are at peace (alliance) with a tribe. The emperor decides to built a fortress on their ground without asking the tribe.
So they are building it. A king of the tribe complains, and is invited by the gouvernor - and killed.
The tribes get angry and destroy the fortress.
The emperor gets angry and massacres the tribe.

Another

The Huns push the Germanic tribe south. The tribes ask the emperor to be able to settle on Roman ground. He agrees.
The gouvernors keep the tribes in one place, without food.
Eventually, they are forced to sell their fellow for slaves in exchange for meat - dog meat, to be precise.
Eventually they have enough of it and revolt.
The emperor tries to stop them and dies at Hadrianopolis.

	26-09-2004 05:25									#405
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ancyrean That's not a point I "designed" to bring Alexander on top but an aspect of his circumstance that should not be omitted in the argument. You have been detailing Napoleon's circumstance, and this one is part of Alexander's. It's sign of certain factors in his time which should at least be drawn attention to. This should not be as difficult to understand as your incredulity suggests. Your cynicism aside, the world is and was of course more than what Alexander knew it to be, but what I was trying to say is that the general perception in Alexander’s time and geography about the world to be as limited as we now know it is only a sign of how difficult things were at the time, in all aspects of life as well as warfare you can think of. It's imperfect and intangible but it's still a sign, and indication. The difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander’s time and the odds he faced can simply not be compared with Napoleon’s time for this very reason, and that should be definitely considered when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz or Borodino, or when making a comparison between marching an army from Poland to Moscow in the early 19th century and marching one from Macedonia to India in the 4th century BCE.

I actually have not detailed any significant circumstance that would place Napoleon on top (read back). Mostly I have spent time defending why I think he is the greatest against the charges of others. The opinion that he is, btw, follows mostly from my personal intuition. As I've repeatedly stated, if any of us were to go up to a PhD body of historians and present our work on this forum, we'd be both laughed and beaten out of the room. If you're interested in irrelevant debates, that's fine. I, however, am not interested in a final conclusion to this, only that in this process we maintain some perspective.

"It's sign of certain factors in his time which should at least be drawn attention to." -- And it is often drawn attention to. Review your original post, however, and you'll find that you said "most" of the known world was under Alexander's reign. Clearly this is false. If you misspoke, then say so here and I'll leave it at that.

"Your cynicism aside, the world is and was of course more than what Alexander knew it to be, but what I was trying to say is that the general perception in Alexander’s time and geography about the world to be as limited as we now know it is only a sign of how difficult things were at the time, in all aspects of life as well as warfare you can think of. It's imperfect and intangible but it's still a sign, and indication. " -- It's more than imperfect, it's wrong. By this token I can claim that the Spanish in the 16th century also ruled "most" of the known world. What actually matters is the civilized world as a whole, not what one civilization thinks is civilized (refer to Spanish example...and I realize the issue of what entails a "civilization" is complex, so I hope it won't become a problem here).

"The difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander’s time and the odds he faced can simply not be compared with Napoleon’s time for this very reason, and that should be definitely considered when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz or Borodino, or when making a comparison between marching an army from Poland to Moscow in the early 19th century and marching one from Macedonia to India in the 4th century BCE." --- Just for reference purposes, Napoleon never faced the odds that Alexander did but he was heavily outnumbered in the 1796 Italian Campaign and at Austerlitz in 1805. You need to expound a bit more on what you mean by "the difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander's time". I understand the gist of what you're saying (though I don't agree with it) but more explanation (ie. the use of historical evidence) would help. Many factors, such as political stability at home, logistics, weakness of the enemy, influence the ability to conduct an expedition and what type of expedition it should be (punitive, involved, or something else). I would agree that it was more difficult for Alexander than Napoleon to wage the campaign that he did, but military expeditions in those times were just as frequent if not more than in Napoleon's time (note: when I say "time", I'm referring to the ancient period at large and the 18th-19th century).

"when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz " - I believe if you review your history books you'll find that Austerlitz was one of the most decisive battles in military history, and certainly more decisive than the Hydaspes. So I'll compare it to whichever engagement I please.

	26-09-2004 06:18									#406
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ancyrean First of all, I’m not saying that I have discovered the “most objective, most complete system to rate the greatest conquerors ever”. Nor did I swear to prove Alexander is the greatest conqueror. I just want the comparison to stand out clearer for the sake of argument. For that purpose, here’s some reflections on what you’ve been saying: - Previously you advocated we should go by the square-miles-conquered criterion, precisely as to not make things very complicated. That was why, you said, you went along with Napoleon. Lo and behold, Genghis Khan beats everybody here, with or without Louisiana for Napoleon. Isn’t GK credited with creating the greatest land empire ever? - On the issue of lasting impact, you conceded a tight match between Alexander and Napoleon. Much as I agree with this, I would hazard some speculation here by saying that Alexander’s effect resonated for much longer than Napoleon's, and therefore so many things changed as a result of his legacy, the number of what-ifs (had he not been around) are infinitely more than the what ifs concerning Napoleon. And if that’s a measure of lasting effect, Alexander, alas, has the upper hand. - You dismissed Alexander’s conquests on the grounds that Persia was a decrepit empire and therefore weak, whereas in Europe Napoleon faced great powers. Persia might have been decrepit but we know it so clearly only today. Then, it was still the world’s greatest empire, admired and feared by everyone including the ancient Greeks and its weaknesses did not liberally advertise itself to invite invasions from all corners of the world. It was a great sense of depth and intuition on the part of Alexander that he calculated it worthwhile to even try conquer it all. Furthermore, Persia could still field armies many orders of magnitude greater than Alexander’s and that for 3 consecutive times. This was unimpressive for you because Alexander faced incompetent commanders so by implication it was a given he would win every time and that he won is no big deal, whereas Napoleon faced reputable opponents, so had more probability of losing than Alexander, therefore Napoleon pwns. Although this argument has some merit to it, it’s still too presumptive to make this the decisive argument for Napoleon. - You further claimed Napoleon is greatest if we consider decisiveness of battles/campaigns. This omits the most obvious fact that he was in the end decisively defeated for good, whatever alleviating reasons you can elaborate, with whatever mistakes and misfortunes you can attribute. A conqueror who conquered considerable real estate against considerable odds but who lost it spectacularly in the end can not be the greatest conqueror. It doesn’t come any more simpler than that. Despite whatever argument you can put against him, Alexander has become a legend. A legend as a conqueror more than anybody else before and after him. Napoleon did not. Napoleon will never inspire as Alexander did and still does.

"- Previously you advocated we should go by the square-miles-conquered criterion, precisely as to not make things very complicated. That was why, you said, you went along with Napoleon. Lo and behold, Genghis Khan beats everybody here, with or without Louisiana for Napoleon. Isn’t GK credited with creating the greatest land empire ever? " --- Oh really? I have no recollection of this, please remind me. You misunderstood my posts. I wasn't going by any criteria; I'm sure if you read closely enough you'll find I said something along the lines of, "IF, we're going by the most square miles conquered", then Genghis Khan would be the greatest. I didn't imply or state this was the most effective system, just that if we were doing it by those guidelines, then I see no room for contention that Khan would be the greatest. He is, btw, credited with the most conquest by any person. The greatest land empire ever was Britain circa 1900, which ruled about 1/4 of the Earth's land surface.

"- On the issue of lasting impact, you conceded a tight match between Alexander and Napoleon. Much as I agree with this, I would hazard some speculation here by saying that Alexander’s effect resonated for much longer than Napoleon's, and therefore so many things changed as a result of his legacy, the number of what-ifs (had he not been around) are infinitely more than the what ifs concerning Napoleon. And if that’s a measure of lasting effect, Alexander, alas, has the upper hand. " --- Napoleon's legacy has been heavily felt, but if you are going to use this biased (again) criteria, you would have to wait a few more centuries to fully appreciate Napoleon's influence. The number of what-ifs wouldn't have been greater??? This is such a stupid consideration, why would you even bother?? As I've detailed before, the French Revolutionary Era and the First Empire led to the explosion of nationalism and various other liberal promulgations (like equality and religious toleration). Around 70 nations today base their laws on the Civil Code Napoleon created. Even a US state, Louisana, does so! And it was Napoleon's idea to have odd-numbered houses on one side of the road and the even on the other (which is what you find all across the US). The reason why the "what if" argument is stupid is because we can ask an infinite amount of "what if" questions, some obviously biased. No one would win. Many historians credit Napoleon for initiating the modern world. I tend to agree with them.

"- You dismissed Alexander’s conquests on the grounds that Persia was a decrepit empire and therefore weak, whereas in Europe Napoleon faced great powers. Persia might have been decrepit but we know it so clearly only today. Then, it was still the world’s greatest empire, admired and feared by everyone including the ancient Greeks and its weaknesses did not liberally advertise itself to invite invasions from all corners of the world. It was a great sense of depth and intuition on the part of Alexander that he calculated it worthwhile to even try conquer it all. " --- I dismissed nothing. I recommend you take an examination to determine how sound your brain is before you put more words in my mouth. Didn't I say I'd rank Alexander as second greatest military commander ever? How's that dismissive? Alexander was an uber commander, no doubt about it. I do not know enough to speak authoritatively on how Greeks and Macedonians (or, more importantly, Alexander himself) viewed Persian strength, but something tells me it wasn't as elevated as you say it was. I know very well (and surely they did too) that Persia was internally very weak. A Greek mercenary army immortalized by Xenophon's writings had even served under Cyrus the Younger in his rebellion against Artaxerxes II in 404 BC. Regardless, when Alexander invaded he wasn't concerned at all with Persia's relative weakness or strength. He had the most advanced army in the world and he believed he was related to Zeus. He believed he was destined to do great things, destined to avenge the Persian invasions of Greece about a century and a half ago. I can speculate that he did not think much of Persia. But this "opinion" is not well-nourished and tentative at best.

"Furthermore, Persia could still field armies many orders of magnitude greater than Alexander’s and that for 3 consecutive times. This was unimpressive for you because Alexander faced incompetent commanders so by implication it was a given he would win every time and that he won is no big deal, whereas Napoleon faced reputable opponents, so had more probability of losing than Alexander, therefore Napoleon pwns. Although this argument has some merit to it, it’s still too presumptive to make this the decisive argument for Napoleon." - TWO consecutive times (Issus and Gaugamela), not three. At the Battle of Granicus, Alexander held a 2-to-1 lead in infantry and suffered a 2-to-1 deficiency in cavalry. "Unimpressive for me" haha....because I adore Napoleon's exploits it makes Alexander "unimpressive" in my eyes?? Wow you must know me better than I do. Unfortunately this forum hasn't warranted the opportunity (ie. most of the time in the past few pages has been spent discussing whether Napoleon was or wasn't the greatest), but I'm always very loving towards Alexander. Now I'm at least glad that you acknowledged that Napoleon warred against relatively tougher opponents. I mean, the Persian satraps at Granicus were completely consumed by hate and desire for glory to listen to Memnon's reasonable admonishments. I haven't exclusively used this argument to place Napoleon above Alexander; it's merely been one among many in my repertoire (and some points I haven't yet specified, for reasons mentioned above).

"- You further claimed Napoleon is greatest if we consider decisiveness of battles/campaigns. This omits the most obvious fact that he was in the end decisively defeated for good, whatever alleviating reasons you can elaborate, with whatever mistakes and misfortunes you can attribute. A conqueror who conquered considerable real estate against considerable odds but who lost it spectacularly in the end can not be the greatest conqueror. It doesn’t come any more simpler than that." --- Presumably then, you're using the "most square miles conquered" argument which just a few moments you accused me of doing when I hadn't. This would place Genghis Khan at the top. THAT'S what can't get any simpler all-right.....

	26-09-2004 06:29									#407
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse I really object to this view that Persia was a broken down empire - the major battles, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were close run affairs. They could have gone either way. The Persian army was no pushover even with poor leadership - they had superb light and heavy cavalry and excellent infantry who were well suited to the terrain and fighting conditions. There was a reason why they were called "the Immortals".

Persia was institutionally weak. You are right, those battles were very close and could have gone either way, but the Persian army at Issus and Gaugamela broke very easily. The system was too centralized (when Darius fled for no reason, so did the entire army) and too many Persian soldiers were foreigners that had no heart in protecting Persian sovereignty. I mention this because at Gaugamela Persian and Indian forces that sneaked past the Macedonian center-left went on to raid their enemy's camp instead of swinging to strike and demolish the left. It is evident that Darius's military skills were horrible and that his subjects were not content under his rule. Egypt even welcomed Alexander as a god, and once the Persian Empire fell there was no thorough attempt to bring it back. The regions dominated by this 'domineering behemoth' simply didn't feel tied to each other in any way. So when we say "Persia was weak", that's what we mean.

	26-09-2004 06:40									#408
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ancyrean Exactly. If the Persian Empire was so broken, how could it field so large armies battle after battle despite being severely defeated each time and losing more land, treasure and resources everytime?

Haha.....ever heard of mercenaries? They're soldiers that are paid to fight for you (lol). There were about 50,000 Greek soldiers that fought for Darius. The Persians could easily get men to fight; getting them to be effective is a whole other matter.

	26-09-2004 06:57									#409
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

this thread is still going eh? I have an idea for a thread. Greatest peacemaker ever. Whatcha think? should I do it?

	26-09-2004 08:20									#410
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dissident this thread is still going eh? I have an idea for a thread. Greatest peacemaker ever. Whatcha think? should I do it?

Ghandi! lol.....

	26-09-2004 09:11									#411
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

UberCryxic: Now that you agreed you're talking more out of intuition than out of a PhD thesis, and since I talk out of intuition too, let me put things once more in different words:

I did not do the square mile counting about Alexander's conquests/net the land area of the known world and compare it with Spanish conquests/net land area of known world, or the British conquests, or Genghis Khan. There sure was some places that Alexander did not conquer in the known world of its time. And sure, Austerlitz might be the most decisive battle in the world, Persia weaker than we give it credit for, and that Napoleonic Civil Code is used by 70 countries in the world.

But one thing I know: Alexander's conquests were so extensive and unheard of in scope that he was considered to have conquered the known world by his contemporaries. His accomplishments were so astounding for his time that he became a legend even while alive, and remained so throughout the ages. This is not anywhere near the case with Napoleon and this is my intuitive defining criterion for the greatest conqueror ever.

If you disagree or find this ridiculous, you have already made a good case for Napoleon and the posters here would be free to associate with whatever point of view in defining for themselves the greatest conqueror ever.

	26-09-2004 10:41									#412
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Heresson The Huns push the Germanic tribe south. The tribes ask the emperor to be able to settle on Roman ground. He agrees. The gouvernors keep the tribes in one place, without food. Eventually, they are forced to sell their fellow for slaves in exchange for meat - dog meat, to be precise. Eventually they have enough of it and revolt. The emperor tries to stop them and dies at Hadrianopolis.

Yes, this story is famous. I agree that Valens was the most stupid Emperor Rome ever had.

	26-09-2004 10:59									#413
	Got spare money?

It appears to me that the Persian empire was indeed institutionally weak and its peoples outside Persia itself probably welcomed Alexander, making it easier for him to continue his campaign deeper into enemy territory.

As to Napoleon, how much of the nationalism that he allegedly inspired related to the concepts of the French revolution itself rather to Napoleon's conquests? I include among these concept the ideas of citizenship and equality. These are powerful ideas that may have infected Europe even if there was no Napoleon.

	26-09-2004 13:52									#414
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dissident this thread is still going eh? I have an idea for a thread. Greatest peacemaker ever. Whatcha think? should I do it?

Do it!

	26-09-2004 14:08									#415
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Why aren't we dicussing Chin either as conqueror or peacemaker. He unified China and brought peace.

	26-09-2004 17:59									#416
	Tired of ads?

Valens deserves bad opinion for not waiting for Gratian (they say He was jealous of his military victories) before Adrianople;
but not for just accepting the guys in.
That's what emperors been doing since Diocletian

	26-09-2004 20:39									#417
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Heresson, I agree in part. The Goths could have been great allies had they been well treated. The fact that the Romans wanted to barter with the Goths for food was literally insane on multiple levels.

On hindsight, it might have been better for the Romans to send support troops into Goth territory to take on the Huns. That would have gone down very well with the Goths. The combined forces of Goths and Romans probably would have defeated the Huns just as the combined forces defeated them in 451 in Gaul.

	27-09-2004 05:25									#418
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

So it's Alexander then. I'm glad we settled that!

	27-09-2004 06:38									#419
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ghengis Khan.

Read your history. And don't judge it by European history only.

A great. quick read is "The Devil's Horsemen", by James Chambers. Read that, then vote again.

The Mongols are hampered by a lack of good literary history, the Euro-bias, and of course, their habit of massacreing cities enmass. Doesn't help your historic popularity, especially with the European writers.

But their miltary conquests are unparalled, even by Alexander - who IMHO, is the only one on the list who comes even close.