Military History's Best Loser

IL believes elephants come from spain. I don’t know how that can be fixed unless he admits he was mistaken.

Never said they were born in Spain, they were shipped to Spain and raised for the coming campaign. The war didn’t come from the sea, it came from Iberia.

You still lose…

Regretably… he lacks the -adult level maturity- to do that.

Actually this is what a baby Gargantua posts:

1. Admit the truth, you’re wrong.

2. Conceed! �

3. You’re surrounded!

4. You just lost your battle of ZAMA! OVER THE NET

Pwnd. � Your ineptitude triggered your spam.

Yes very revealing and adult.

Well initially Mr. Crunch claimed that bringing the elephants to Europe was quite a feat.  I tend to disagree because of the route taken and the fact the route was not contested. Hannibal only had to transport the elephants, oversea, the short distance from North Africa to southern Spain. And again this route was not contested by the Romans. Getting the elephants over the Alps WAS quite a feat.

The way the debate initially began was my claim which was something like this - Napoleon’s subjugation of continental Europe is more impressive than Hannibal’s failed invasion of Italy.

After reading that Mr. Crunch came in with his “quite a feat” and it has deteriorated to this.

It was enhanced with people who understand the truth and dispel the falsehood of people, with heads made of wood so dense that even termites wouldn’t bother.

The war was clearly a war from land to land from tracing all the battles and where the campaign originated from. Because one battle in the last year was over the sea, does not make a war fought “across the ocean”

And that info is from the wood heads postings where they post the opposite of what they think the map clearly shows.

Perhaps we need to go back to the basics and define WAR and BATTLE and CAMPAIGN.

WAR
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

The two nations were Carthage and Rome.

Those nations primarily were based in different continents with a sea between them.  One nation launches a war on the other and the nations have a sea between them.  I do not count Spain as an integral part of Carthage, it was a colony and on net took more resources from Cartage then it provided Hannibal.

Battle
1.a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces: the battle of Waterloo.
2.participation in such hostile encounters or engagements: wounds received in battle.
3.a fight between two persons or animals: ordering a trial by battle to settle the dispute.

Campaign
1.Military .
a. military operations for a specific objective.
b. Obsolete . the military operations of an army in the field for one season.
2. a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose: a sales campaign.
3. the competition by rival political candidates and organizations for public office.

The overseas war that Carthage launched on Rome started with a campaign launched from a base/colony in Spain where many recruits were gained and many battles occurred.

See, IL, the problem is you don’t know meaning of basic words.  But again, you were sure Hannibal was born in Turkey so its no wonder big words confuse you.  Please consult a dictionary before engaging in a battle wits with me as you are poorly armed.

Last Jack, I agree, getting the elephants over the alps was more of a feat then getting them across the sea.  However, Carthage didn’t have control of the sea or have much of a navy in the second punic war.  But I do agree with you, alps crossing more impressive.

Perhaps we need to go back to the basics and define WAR and BATTLE and CAMPAIGN.

WAR
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

The two nations were Carthage and Rome.

Those nations primarily were based in different continents with a sea between them.  One nation launches a war on the other and the nations have a sea between them.  I do not count Spain as an integral part of Carthage, it was a colony and on net took more resources from Cartage then it provided Hannibal.

Wrong . The campaign, war or battle was directed from a group from Iberia 100,000 men and 37 elephants. The elephants came from India and Africa and shipped and raised in Iberia, the men came from this region. The war was directed from the Empire of Carthage located in Spain into France, the Alps and into Rome. The first and second Punic war were 99% directed from this region BY LAND and not sea.

Battle
1.a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces: the battle of Waterloo.
2.participation in such hostile encounters or engagements: wounds received in battle.
3.a fight between two persons or animals: ordering a trial by battle to settle the dispute.

Campaign
1.Military .
a. military operations for a specific objective.
b. Obsolete . the military operations of an army in the field for one season.
2. a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose: a sales campaign.
3. the competition by rival political candidates and organizations for public office.

Adds nothing to the conversation BTW

The overseas war that Carthage launched on Rome started with a campaign launched from a base/colony in Spain where many recruits were gained and many battles occurred.

Wrong #2, the campaign was launched in it’s entirety from the Carthage Empire located in Iberia, not bases, not stepping stones, none of that…just Carthage by land to land.

See, IL, the problem is you don’t know meaning of basic words.  But again, you were sure Hannibal was born in Turkey so its no wonder big words confuse you.  Please consult a dictionary before engaging in a battle wits with me as you are poorly armed.

You dont know the meaning of truth,  What you post about the “War across the Oceans” is the biggest pile of false ever witnessed.

You can continue to argue more or cry for your tag team partner to help you but both of you are sunk…in the ocean.

Next time Germany takes France and then attacks and invades Corsica, you can call this a war across the ocean :mrgreen:

Now here is your statement:

Carthage was indeed across the ocean and that is from where the attack originated from sans his European allies.

What is misleading is the attack originated from Iberia where part of Carthage existed, the entire attack came from Iberia into the Alps and into Roma.All of this was by way of land, not the damn “ocean”. No attack came from or across the sea, until the last year of the second Punic war, the final act was the Romans defeating Carthage by sea. The main point is that the vast majority of the war occurred BY LAND TO LAND. Not across the sea.

It is only true that part of Carthage exists across the “ocean” ( your vernacular) . The war didn’t occur and the force came from land.

Now lastly, i am going to leave this “discussion” because nobody reads the posts, understands the facts, or otherwise goes for a total absence of reasoning. It is a shame and i feel guilty arguing with people who have brain injury and other life issues. I didn’t know that before, but now it is clear. Mr. Crunch you can believe what you like and im sorry to have troubled you. If Gargantua shows back up i could continue this with him, but for you take the rest of the day to relax.

I knew there was something wrong, but until recently had no idea about your condition. I used to have a friend who had a brain injury and it took time to understand or accept his way of reasoning of which we can never blame. Good day.

…And we still dont know who History´s best Commander was who lost, what so ever...but we now know who a few prefer over the others of Militarys History best Commander who lost.

Right IL, I did use the word attack from Carthage when talking about the war launched by Carthage.  Really, you are that anal about specific usages of the word attack and war etc but even with your masters degree from stanford you were claiming Hannibal was born in Turkey.   It seems obvious to me and everyone else you are using this thread as a platform to attack myself and Garg.

IL, you really need to make a new thread devoted to whatever it is you are really fighting about.

I have to agree with aequitas et veritas.  This thread is about Military History’s Best Loser.  Please do not use this as a forum to continue your personal hostilities between myself and you and Garg and you.  You chimed in to personally attack my position and I still don’t know what you are disagreeing about in what I said.

Until you can politely explain to me exactly it is that I said that you feel is incorrect I am going to ignore you in this thread and allow it to return to what it was really intended for.  Military History’s Best Loser Disagree, but don’t be disagreeable about it.  Everyone else who disagrees with me can do so politely and we can debate and agree to disagree, what is it about you that prevents that from occurring here?

You mentioned General Alexei Brusilov in your list ABWorsham,
and I wondered what you thought his lost was.
After all he seemed more like a Hero, not so much of a tactician or strategist.
His attack brought a relief on parts of the Western front during WW I…

Good point.  I knew nothing about General Alexei Brusilov 2 hours ago.  I don’t see where he lost anything.  I somewhat disagree with aequitas et veritas.  I think he was more of a patriot than a hero tho he was certainly brave and heroic but many soldiers are.  He does appear to have been at the cusp of modern warfare, a pioneer in blitzkrieg tactics, early forms of it with limited technologies anyways.

I too voted king Leonidas for his loss at the Thermopylene

Right IL, I did use the word attack from Carthage when talking about the war launched by Carthage.  Really, you are that anal about specific usages of the word attack and war etc but even with your masters degree from stanford you were claiming Hannibal was born in Turkey.   It seems obvious to me and everyone else you are using this thread as a platform to attack myself and Garg.

IL, you really need to make a new thread devoted to whatever it is you are really fighting about.

I have to agree with aequitas et veritas.  This thread is about Military History’s Best Loser.  Please do not use this as a forum to continue your personal hostilities between myself and you and Garg and you.  You chimed in to personally attack my position and I still don’t know what you are disagreeing about in what I said.

Until you can politely explain to me exactly it is that I said that you feel is incorrect I am going to ignore you in this thread and allow it to return to what it was really intended for.  Military History’s Best Loser Disagree, but don’t be disagreeable about it.  Everyone else who disagrees with me can do so politely and we can debate and agree to disagree, what is it about you that prevents that from occurring here?

Crunch writes:

Carthage was indeed across the ocean and that is from where the attack originated from sans his European allies.

Brusilov lost when Russia SURRENDERED / Sued for peace with Germany.

Russia didn’t beat Germany in WWI.

The same thing applies to all russian generals in WWI, why single out one of the more successful ones who didn’t lose?  I suppose I am thinking the general himself would have to lose personally eventually.  He never lost a battle so a bit hard to put him in this boat.

My grandfather fought with the British Expeditionary force in Russian fighting for the Tsarist side.  I wish I knew more about him.  I do know he was fighting past when the war with Germany was over and his side didn’t win, the Tsarists lost.  As a young boy I remember him talking about crossing the ocean, ship losing a propeller in the storm, catching fire and sinking the day after it got into port and then it got bad he said and didn’t talk more about it.  Of course he was 72 the day I was born so was pretty old by the time I could remember him and his few stories.  He was born in 1895 and his first kid was in 1935 so no doubt the war affected him to start a family so late.

You know you are getting old when you can remember talking to somebody born in the 1800s……

Thank you for the story Malachi.
I live in the past, imagining I am a US Civil War General, so the 1800s hold no fear for me!
Remembering our grandparents’  war stories sets us apart and defines from where we came.
I will never forget what I was told and will impart it to my children and(I hope) grandchildren.