 |
|
Kekkonen
|
|
Turku, Finland
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
Historical question: how many non-Anglo (background other than UK/Irish) presidents has the US had? Based on names, I can't think of anyone but Van Buren, but names can be deceptive (former vice-prez Mondale was Norwegian, original family name was Mundahl or something like that).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
History Guy
|
 |
Reads too many books...
Oct 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
I'd also like to add to the list of bad leaders for the English-- Richard II and Richard III. As for Clinton, he was certainly America's worst president, Jason. You didn't have to live under him.  Grant was certainly not the greatest leader of the Civil War. As a specialist in that field, I must suggest that Stonewall Jackson was the best tactical commander in the war, and if you want good Northern leaders, there's plenty others (though I also must exclude Sherman, who was not a great field commander but an excellent campaigner, if very brutish). Grant's tactic for winning battles remained the same throughout the war. Charge in your men headfirst, lose huge numbers of them, and then sidestep the Confederates. His first battle, Belmont, Nov. 7th, 1861, was a disaster, and his troops were totally routed and he himself was nearly killed or caught. Though he fought well at Fort Donelson, he only won that battle because the fort was undermanned, he was nearly defeated by an attempt to break the siege. His army was completely surprised at Shiloh, April 6th, 1862, and was routed. It was only the timely arrival of Don Carlos Buell's army that saved him. In the successful campaign of Vicksburg, he launched three large scale assaults on the city, all of which ended in slaughter for his side. In the end, Vicksburg was starved into surrender. Nov. 1863, Chattanooga. Grant's attack on Missionary Ridge barely made it. And of course, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, and Cold Harbor were all bloodbaths for his army. He won by manuever more than by battlefield success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
As a bit of a specialist in the field, I reassert that Grant was better. If we're going to bring up Shiloh, where Grant (and everyone else) was caught napping, you'd best explain how the Confederate favourites, Lee and Jackson, performed so miserably in the Seven Days Battles. Of course they WON, but that was entirely McClellan's achievement 
The fact that Grant won his battles by maneuver is precisely the point. The attempted assaults on Vicksburg were an irrelevant side-note to the actual campaign for Vicksburg, one of maneuver that Grant won. (Granted, the Confederates could have handled the situation better, but as it was Grant mastered them handily.)
Fort Henry and Donelson are pretty minor stuff in terms of generalship. I seem to recall that his near failure at the later was in some respects the fault of his ambitious political subordinate. Hard to say how close the rebels were to breaking out, but Grant recovered the situation.
One can reproach Grant for not entrenching at Shiloh, just as one can reproach Tallard for not entrenching at Blenheim. Every now and again you get a fight where "The enemy wasn't supposed to be doing the attacking!" Painting it as a rescue by Buell is questionable. One has to consider Lew Wallace's blame in the battle, and it is hard to say how the battle would have been finished if Buell's arrival had been more tardy.
But how can you accuse him (accuse him? Compliment him) by calling him a manuever general and then say his strategy was to throw men into the grinder then maneuver? It's quite the opposite. At each of the little bloodbaths from Wilderness to the James, Grant was trying to find and turn the Confederate flank. All you can say is that he should have knocked off each battle sooner, which is great when you have hindsight. How many victories start out bloodily? The fact is, he just kept on flanking the Rebels until they ran out of flank to refuse, at Richmond, and there's the war gone. No other Union general seemed to have the basic sense to engage along a large front and just keep flanking.
I don't see any other civil war generals with operational level skill like Grant; it was just his ill-fortune to misjudge the end of the confederate right in what was, ultimately, a winning strategy. The crossing of the James on a giant bridge, I mean, come on. That's art. A little more speed and a little less Beauregard and that could've really been something.
As for missionary ridge, by the way, most people credit it as one of Grant's victories, but I actually sort of "deduct" that from his scorecard as subordinates' work. There wasn't a lot of him involved there. so, *shrug*
I'm close enough to observe American politics. In a few decades Clinton'll be just another bland presidency with some odd footnotes. Modern politics has a way of making mountains out of molehills.
Simple reason I know I'm right; the only people that will care in a few decades are historians at universities, which of course tend to have the politics somewhere left of a cambodian rice commune. Trust me on this Always plenty of people ready to lynch poor ol' Kissinger, but Carter? Nawwww. No matter how many times he tries to reappear.
Personally I like Clinton. I despised him and was a fanatical republican for Bush Sr. and Dole, and then Clinton started getting some really, really distasteful political enemies, and I disassociated myself from American political affiliations. I just close my eyes and try not to think of James Carville. Mos moral manin Amurka. Not to be confused with Bush Jrs. Amurka.
Ahhhh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by History Guy
OK, Molly, but let's face it, she saved Spain. Without Isabella there would be no Spain today (at least not in any recognizable form). She was the one who drove out the Islamic armies and crushed their navy at Lepanto. Philip II was a good king, but he made as many bad choices as good choices. |
Ummm....only the Emirate of Granada was left at the time of the reigns of Ferdinand and Isabella, and its inhabitants had been around for a long time, they were not invaders. The point to Isabella was of course that racially and in terms of their faith, they were different, and in her zeal to make of the peninsula a unity, she ignored the potential damage to the kingdoms' future economies. She may have been prompted in her zeal by the knowledge of the Jewish ancestry of her husband (descended from Juana Enriquez,a converso) and simple anti-semitism; she instituted the Holy Inquisition under the other famous converso, Torquemada. None so bad as converts when it comes to applying a faith zealously. She was also long dead and in the grave by the time of Lepanto:
'Lepanto, naval battle between the Christians and Ottomans fought at the mouth of the Gulf of Patras, off Lepanto, Greece. The fleet of the Holy League commanded by John of Austria (d. 1578) opposed the Ottoman fleet under Uluç Ali Pasha. The allied fleet (about 200 galleys, not counting smaller ships) consisted mainly of Spanish, Venetian, and papal ships and of vessels sent by a number of Italian states. It carried approximately 30,000 fighting men and was about evenly matched with the Ottoman fleet. The battle ended with the virtual destruction of the Ottoman navy (except 40 galleys, with which Uluç Ali escaped). Approximately 15,000 Turks were slain or captured, some 10,000 Christian galley slaves were liberated, and much booty was taken. The victors, however, lost over 7,000 men. Among the allied wounded was Cervantes, who lost the use of his left arm. Lepanto was the first major Ottoman defeat by the Christian powers, and it ended the myth of Ottoman naval invincibility. It did not, however, affect Ottoman supremacy on the land, and a new Turkish fleet was speedily built by Sokollu, grand vizier of Selim II. Nevertheless, the battle was decisive in the sense that an Ottoman victory probably would have made the Ottoman Empire supreme in the Mediterranean.'
Isabella's reign: 1451-1504
Lepanto, Battle of, Oct. 7th , 1571
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
But... isn't that what the Irish are for? :-)
(Joking) |
it would seem that way, for the english
[whiny english off topic troll] they're all terrorists![/whiny english off topic troll]
would what happened to those people for so many hundreds of years be considered terrorism? just a thought
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
I take it I've converted you to the One True Faith of U.S. Grant worship?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by History Guy
Come to think of it, all three Richards were pretty bad. Richard I, Coeur de Leon, Richard II and III. |
Now, History Guy, whilst I would wholeheartedly agree with you concerning the lack of kingly/administrative abilities of both Lionheart and Richard II, I take a slightly different approach to Richard III. I love the play by Shakespeare, and both the filmed versions by Olivier and especially the modern updating by Ian McKellen; but the thing that always gave me pause with the character of Richard, was the problem of his being the predecessor to the reign of five Tudor monarchs, who were the successors of his opponents, the Lancastrians. Look at it another way; both Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare were propagandists in their differing ways, for the Tudor cause. Shakespeare had to earn a living, so his portrayal of Henry VIII, for instance, in his play of the same name, bears little resemblance to the facts we know about the king. Also, he was writing at a time of great uncertainty, socially and politically, so bolstering the image of Elizabeth I's grandfather's claim to the throne reflected well on himself and on her, acting to legitimize the sovereignty of someone whose claims were assailed not only by Mary Queen of Scots, but also by other surviving cousins. Sir Thomas More, before his split with Henry, was not only a chancellor but also a friend, and again must have known which side his bread was buttered. The main source of information for Shakespeare's play is Sir Thomas More's account of Richard's life, so it would be rather like an imaginary Goebbel's 'Life of Stalin' as filmed by Leni Riefenstahl...not exactly an objective view.
Josephine Tey has written a fascinating non-academic Ricardian book, 'The Daughter of Time',
dannyreviews.com/h/The_Princes_in_the_Tower.html
dealing with the controversy, and check out the Richard III society at:
www.richardiii.net/
and also: www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2918
and: www.cgocable.net/~tbryce
for further debate. Intriguingly enough, the monastic chroniclers didn't share the harsh views of his later critics, and contemporaries do not mention any physical deformities. I suspect that the physical aspect of the later portrayal of Richard was meant to act in people's minds as a metaphor for the hidden true nature of his psyche.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Let me say it right out- being a murderous, bloodthirsty person does not make one a terrible nor even innapprotpriate leader. Look at all the 'greats' out there: How many of them were nice, easy-going guys? Charles?Peter?Frederick?Catherine?Alexander? None. they all begun programs that did much harm to many people. So why are they labelled 'great'? Because they extended the reach and power of their respective states and are thus remembered fondly by the people (but not the neighbors). Ceaser is the most appropriate leader for the Romans there is: Heck, they labelled their leaders after that with his name! The Romans were a violent, aggressive, industrious people and a leader that was all of those is the perfect fit. If you want to get a list of the worst leader for each civ, well heres a suggestion: gather a few members of that civ, or experts on it if it no longer exists, and ask them how they (members or experts) would rate thier own leaders. After this, place the bottom guy in the mod, problem solved!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
davwhitt
|
|
Raleigh, NC
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
The primary reason for this thread is the belief that including inappropriate leaders would enhance gameplay. Based on this reason, I think the leaders we should consider should be chosen more for their ability to make gameplay fun and interesting rather than their historical accuracy. Yes Hitler was Austrian but he is a far more interesting choice than Frederick the Great or Hindenberg. Alexander the Great wasn't even Greek - he was Macedonian - and Friaxis included him in this game and previous games. Grant may have been a worse president than Nixon but Nixon had a more memorable personality. Here are my choices (note some are not "inappropriate" but rather just different from the originals chosen by Friaxis)...
Germans: Hitler
Russians: Stalin
English: Henry VIII
French: Napoleon
Zulus: Dingiswayo ?
Aztecs: Cuauhtémoc
Japanese: Tojo
Romans: Caligula
Greeks: Theseus
Chinese: Chang Kai-Shek
Americans: Nixon
Egyptians: Ramses
Persians: Cyrus the Great
Babylonians: Nebuchadnezzar
Indians: Ashoka
Iroquois: Tachnechdorus ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Sigel?
I must admit, I've not studied him in any detail, but isn't he one of the more dismissed political generals?
Jackson/Lee, *sigh*. If Lee had had the operational sense of manuever that Grant had (which you seemed to think was a bad thing) there might be a Confederacy today.
The problem is all these damned overzealous Clausewitzeans so eager to prove that outdated 18th century ideas of manuever needed overturning... That armies and not geography should dictate the direction of campaign... Obsolete military history, IMO.
Now, I know it is going in the other direction, and a little dated now, but one of the advocates of indirect manuever, Fuller I believe, wrote a book called "Grant and Lee, a study in personality and generalship" that argues some of what I did.
Liddell Hart and other "Maneuver" men likewise line up behind Grant and tend to deflate Lee's legend.
I mean really, instead of looking at the miracles Lee pulled off with luck, good soldiers and tactical sense, and consider what he could have done with a mind that extended beyond the Virginia theatre, or had a better sense of civil-military relations.
(Granted, Lee had a more difficult General to work with.)
Anyway, interesting topic, sorry to get off the thread a little.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Gettysburg was also obviously a mark on Lee, although people are at pains to emphasize how much stress he was under at that point.
The maneuver aspect of Grant is more important than Lee's tactics... Ultimately, what good is a chancellorsville against someone like Grant? What is really so lovely about Lee? There were no very good grand plans, nothing more than tactical fireworks and taking advantage of Northern leadership difficulties, no?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Reading this thread, there seems to be three conflicting definitions of "bad" leaders:
1) "Evil"
2) "Incompetent", which cascades into
a) "made policy decisions harmful to the state in question"
b) "was ineffective at getting his/her policy proposals enacted"
c) "made political decisions harmful to his/her own career"
3) The poster doesn't like the leader's political ideology.
#3 seems to apply only to leaders in living memory and to primarily be from posters who are so partisan that they confuse it with #1 and/or #2. #3 is in fact invalid as a criteria and annoying to read, and should be banished from the discussion. I would further submit that leaders of such recent vintage are too recent to get anything like a dispassionate judgement of history, and should therefore be excluded altogether. I would propose to exclude any leader who initially took office as the chief executive of his/her own country AFTER the end of WWII.
So the question remains whether #1 or #2 is to be the criteria, and if #2 then whether 2c without also 2a/b is qualifying.
Last edited by Barnacle Bill on 25-11-2001 at 17:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Including Clinton is pointless. His judicial and sexual escapades are historically insignificant - I don't want to get into a debate on U.S. politics under any circumstances, it's like debating theology, but ranking him (or Nixon to be truthful) with the kind of "whoops" presidents like Buchanan or Johnson just comes from a lack of historical perspective. |
Yeah, but a graphic of Clinton with a big cigar in his mouth would be just too funny. For America, I suggest Emporer Roosevelt, who single-handedly moved America from (relatively) libertarian to authoritarian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
davwhitt
|
|
Raleigh, NC
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Libertarian
Yeah, but a graphic of Clinton with a big cigar in his mouth would be just too funny. For America, I suggest Emporer Roosevelt, who single-handedly moved America from (relatively) libertarian to authoritarian. |
Yeah, it's a shame too because Hoover's libertarian policies were doing such a wonderful job of getting the US out of the depression. Seriously though Roosevelt did pass some authoritarian measures like detaining people w/o due process, supporting foreign dictators, killing civilians with mass bombings of enemy cities, and restricting civil liberties at home - just like Bush is doing now. Isn't progress amazing!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
There are lots of forums for political bickering and revisionist history, folks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bad Ax
|
 |
Right behind you
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Hmm... some choices are obvious, others are explained...
America: EVIL: Andrew Jackson
Perhaps the only American leader who can truly be considered to be evil. A barbarian who loved nothing more than to ignore already unfair treaties and sent thousands of American natives to their deaths OUTSIDE of wartime. Not to mention his attitude towards the Constitution, which was apparently that it was for use as toilet paper.
STUPID: Herbert Hoover
FUNNY: Nixon
Germany: EVIL: Hitler
STUPID: Mad King Ludwig isn't bad.
FUNNY: Ludwig
France: EVIL: Napoleon. Maybe not entirely evil, but sufficiently priggish and annoying to satisfy anyone. Annoying Corsican prig.
STUPID: Louis XVI. Or Marie Antoinette. Cake, anyone?
FUNNY: Louis XIV
England: EVIL: Hrm... Oliver Cromwell?
STUPID: Neville, Neville, Neville. So sad. George III might also be a good choice.
FUNNY: George III also good here. Also perhaps John Cleese -- not a ruler, but a funny guy.
Zulus: EVIL: Shaka
STUPID: Cetshwayo (I think that's how it's spelled), who lost the Zulu nation to the Brits (despite a good showing at Isandhlwana).
FUNNY: There is nothing funny about Zulus.
Greeks: EVIL: Alcibiades
STUPID: Any number of Athenian rulers
FUNNY: Oedipus. Mythic, perhaps, but quite a ripper.
Aztecs: EVIL: Any
STUPID: Montezuma, though I suppose he can't be blamed.
FUNNY: See Zulus
Persians: EVIL: Not sure...
STUPID: Darius
FUNNY: Not sure
Iroquois: Can't come up with anyone.
Romans: EVIL: Nero's a good choice, though most of them *were* scum.
STUPID: Caligula's a good choice, though most of them *were* idiots. Also, consider Mussolini.
FUNNY: In hindsight, the whole thing seems rather silly, doesn't it?
Russians: EVIL: Stalin
STUPID: Nicholas II
FUNNY: Boris Yeltsin
Indians: No good ideas here
Egyptians: Nor here
Japanese: EVIL: Not sure
STUPID: Also lost
FUNNY: Hideaki Anno. Come to think of it, he might go well under Evil, also.
BABYLONIANS: EVIL: Nebuchadnezzar
STUPID: Not sure
FUNNY: Nebuchadnezzar sounds funny, doesn't it?
Chinese: EVIL: Mao. Hoo boy.
STUPID: Chang Kai-Shek
FUNNY: Deng Xiaoping. Have him appear with a set of cards.
And that's all I've got.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2001 19:48
please explain.
|