@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.
Choose your Leader
-
Anthony McAuliffe
Led the Americans through “The Battle of the Bulge”
“NUTS!”
-
don’t call me a nazi, but i would pick Rommel
and Model, but purely on his militairy abling, not his ideology
-
Guderian , the fast HEINZ…lol
-
My Top 5 list:
America : G. Patton
USSR : Zhukov
UK : Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart
France : Charles de Gaulle
Ger. : Heinz Guderian -
Grant and Sherman :wink: Hey it worked for Lincoln.
Well if it has to be WW2 Era
On European land : Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS Felix Steiner or Oberstgruppenführer und Generaloberst der Waffen-SS Sepp Dietrich
On Sea : Fleet Admiral Bill Halsey
On Pacific Islands: General Tadamichi Kuribayashi
-
If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?
-
@ABWorsham:
If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?
Pretty obvious… :lol: :-) :-D 8-)
-
Sun Tzu
That it is all
-
WWII - Either Ike or Goerge C. Marshall
All History - George Washington
-
Sun Tzu
That it is all
That or Zhuge Liang. Actually, I’d choose Zhuge because he knew of what Sun taught (and used it on Sun’s descendants) and applied it to everything else he knew.
-
Colonel Harland Sanders
-
Julius Caesar is my over all choice. His battle plan at Alesia was bold. He also was a skilled politician. I beleive Caesar may be one of the most underated commanders.
-
I don’t think Gaius Julius is underrated, although most people think of him as Dictator and Caesar, not as millitary commander, he have a track record for winning with less soldiers, and this could be b/c roman soldiers was better trained, but he also won against Pompey, and Pompey also had roman soldiers. I think Julius may be overrated as Caesar, but he deserves to “overrated”, due to his great achievements both as General and politician.
-
-
That or Zhuge Liang. Actually, I’d choose Zhuge because he knew of what Sun taught (and used it on Sun’s descendants) and applied it to everything else he knew.
That’s interesting: some people say that Zhuge Liang’s campaigns on Wei weakened too much Shu and leaded to Shu’s fall. Maybe if Shu saved more force and focused in defense they could hold more against Wei. On the other hand, I think both Sima Yi and Sun Quan handled better their resources (after all, Wu was the last of 3 kingdoms to fall and only fallen to Jin - Sima Yi’s descendants)
I find that similar to Justinian’s dream of recovering Roman Empire: it only wasted Bizantium’s resources to a lost cause, and let they in bad shape to fight against the real threat: Persians and, later, muslims
-
That or Zhuge Liang. Actually, I’d choose Zhuge because he knew of what Sun taught (and used it on Sun’s descendants) and applied it to everything else he knew.
That’s interesting: some people say that Zhuge Liang’s campaigns on Wei weakened too much Shu and leaded to Shu’s fall. Maybe if Shu saved more force and focused in defense they could hold more against Wei. On the other hand, I think both Sima Yi and Sun Quan handled better their resources (after all, Wu was the last of 3 kingdoms to fall and only fallen to Jin - Sima Yi’s descendants)
That could very well be. But Zhuge pacified the south before marching North, and really only saw defeat through running out of supplies. He created alliances when necessary but also had the keenest tactical sense out of everyone in the Three Kingdoms era. Even while dead he caused fear in the enemy. He just didn’t have enough competent officers to finish out the plan of restoring the Han.
-
He created alliances when necessary but also had the keenest tactical sense out of everyone in the Three Kingdoms era
Yep, this is true, Zhuge Liang was the best tactician. Also probably was a diplomatic genius. But from a strategical point of view, both Sima Yi and Sun Quan performed better.
I mean, Zhuge Liang, as you say, managed make Shu a solid stronghold. But by then Wei was simply too big and all Shu could make was make a unstable alliance with Wu to force a draw. If Shu would focused in defense they could have a chance of surviving (after all, Jin itself collapsed in a couple of generations), if teamed right with Wu. But going with that continue series of attacks in northern plains only exausted Shu without real hope of managing a decisive victory (Wei simply could retire to east if, say, Chang An fallen to Shu)
I think that only a solid defense allied with Wu could save Shu in long race. But their only real hope of beating Wei was an exterior force that could cripple enough Wei (Xionghu?)
Anyway, not all fault goes to Zhuge Liang. Jian Wei continued the attacks after Zhuge’s death and whe have that patetic Liu Chan and his eunucs
-
Even while dead he caused fear in the enemy. He just didn’t have enough competent officers to finish out the plan of restoring the Han.
Both things are true. I like the first sentence, because it reminds me Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (el Cid, Castille 11th century). He also was famed by winning battles after dead :-D Of course, it’s not the same because Díaz was a warrior and Zhuge was mainly a intelectual. But it show how history repeats
-
Alexander the Great, Duh :wink:
-
I definitely can see your argument, Fun. Did they translate 3 Kingdoms in Spanish? Or did you read an English copy?
Suggested Topics
