Name history's top 5 generals:

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Why would any list that includes Hannibal not also include the man who beat Hannibal? Hannibal was able to beat the Romans until they themselves had a competent commander.

Because the defeat of Hannibal was not down to Scipio being a better general overall.

[Ned]

molly, one could argue that Hannibal's earlier successes were primarily due to the incompetence of the Roman commanders. Scipio was an excellent general and beat Hannibal even up on Hannibal's home turf.

[Alexander I]

My personal picks...

5. Stonewall Jackson
4. Germanicus Caesar
3. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Genghis Khan
1. Hannibal Barca

Honorable Mention: Alexander the Great

[Cartimandua]

Napoleon Bonaparte
Alexander of Macedon
Julius Caesar
Hannibal Barca
Robert E. Lee

[RGBVideo]

stop giving money to hansen, he's been proven to lie if it means more $$$ for him

Originally posted by Lonestar
blah blah sherman only massacred slave-holders, i know this because a book by victor david hansen says so

We've got this Fresno intellectual who likes to strut the same way in the local paper. He's one of these snotty *******s with three names: Victor Davis Hanson. Oh, sorry: Doctor Victor David Hanson. He's got a Ph.D. and he teaches at Fresno State.

This fool passes himself off as a military historian, writing columns about Iraq and Afghanistan and everything else he feels like babbling about, but he doesn't have a clue about contemporary warfare. Every war nerd on the net knows more about what's happening in Iraq than he does. But that doesn't stop him. He teaches Classics, he's written a half dozen books on ancient warfare, and he never lets you forget that he's a professor and you're not.
[..]
But you know, I could take all Hanson's hypocritical pompous bull**** if he only knew something about contemporary warfare. He doesn't. All he knows is that he's in favor of Gulf War II, and to defend that mess he's willing to slander Bush Sr's magnificent victory in Gulf War I. This is insane, really insane-taking America's only outright strategic victory since 1945, our most glorious campaign since Inchon, and turning it into a defeat just so you can make Bush Jr's fiasco look a little better. Here's Hanson's treasonous account of Gulf War I:

"War I (January 17 to March 3, 1991)

"The First Iraqi War : started over Saddam Hussein's August 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait. His occupation precipitated the American-led coalition's efforts to reclaim Kuwait through land and air attacks. Saddam's complete capitulation was seen as satisfying the war's professed claim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait.

"But despite retreating from Kuwait and suffering terrible damage to his armed forces, Saddam, like the Germans in 1918, claimed that his armies had been repelled while on the offensive. So he passed off a setback as a draw against the world's superpower - and thus a win by virtue of his own survival against overwhelming odds.

"In any case, we called off our forces before the destruction of the Republican Guard. We also refused to go to Baghdad; we let rebellious Shiites and Kurds be tragically butchered; and we failed to enforce all the surrender agreements. Apparently the U.S. wished to bow to the U.N. mandates only to expel Saddam from Kuwait, or was worried about our Sunni partners who wanted a lid on Kurdish tribalism and Shiite fervor inside Iraq."

There are so many evil lies here, I don't know where to start. First there's the phony comparison to Germany after WW I. There's no comparison at all. Saddam's Kuwait invasion wasn't a nationalist war like WW I, and no matter what Saddam said, every dog in the street in Baghdad knew perfectly well that the Iraqi army had been outclassed and savaged. Moreover, the Germans fought for four years and nearly won, whereas Saddam got his ass completely whipped in a three-day land war. [...]

"The Fourth Iraqi War ("The Insurrection," "The Occupation") began immediately after the end of the conventional fighting and continues today. It was framed by the fact that the United States would not simply leave after toppling Saddam yet had never really gone into the Sunni Triangle in force during the three-week victory. War IV was waged by a loose alliance of Wahhabi fundamentalists, foreign jihadists, and former Baathists against the American efforts to fashion an indigenous Iraqi democratic government."

Here again, there's so many lies it's hard to know where to start. Like, what the hell does Hanson mean by saying we never attacked the Sunni Triangle? As military history, that's pure nonsense. [...]

Victor Hanson: Portrait of an American Traitor.

[Lonestar]

Re: stop giving money to hansen, he's been proven to lie if it means more $$$ for him

Originally posted by VJ



Victor Hanson: Portrait of an American Traitor.

Ah, Ad hominen attacks, my favorite kind. Of course, his book(The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny) is well researched and cites his sources chapter and verse, so I fail to see how his views on the Gulf War are relavent.


And you still haven't managed to drag up dirt on the other book I mentioned


Especially as it's from a Russian site, no doubt trying to undermine a pro-Western author.

[Ned]

Alexander01, which proven commander did Germanicus beat?

[Ned]

Stonewall Jackson was indeed good. The Army of Virginia never lost while he was alive and never won after he died.

[RGBVideo]

looks like somebody's in denial

Originally posted by Lonestar
Ah, Ad hominen attacks

if you had bothered to read the article linked, you would've noticed that he had a long list of things Hanson had routinely made up in his various writings. But carry on being in denial and raking big bucks to your favorite "historian" who changes every fact as his target audience wants to hear it if you wish.

edit:

And you still haven't managed to drag up dirt on the other book I mentioned

The only instance I had ever heard of Hansen before you mentioned him was ward nerd's column several months ago. Contrary to what you seem to assert, I don't have any sort of axe to grind here: hence I haven't bothered to read or analyze any of his books.

edit2:

Especially as it's from a Russian site, no doubt trying to undermine a pro-Western author.

the author of that article has lived his whole life in Southern CA...

[DinoDoc]

Lonestar: Why should I bother to look at those books if you can't even be arsed to summarize the views they espouse wrt Sherman?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Ned
Alexander01, which proven commander did Germanicus beat?

Arminius of the Cherusci aka "Hermann the German," the same Germanic commander who had slaughtered Varus' legions at the Teutoburger Wald.

[Ned]

Indeed! It looks like Hermann should not be the national hero he is made out to be if he lost to Germanicus.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Ned
Indeed! It looks like Hermann should not be the national hero he is made out to be if he lost to Germanicus.

Well, their campaigns were sort of back and forth; they'd each "one up" the other. They were both superlative commanders. However, Germanicus' murder prevented him from building on his successes.

His victories made him so popular that he would've been emperor had he not been killed, and I dare say he would've been a better one than his son, Caligula.

[Ned]

No doubt Germanicus would have been a great ruler. I understand he was a Republican at heart.

[Lonestar]

Re: looks like somebody's in denial

Originally posted by VJ

the author of that article has lived his whole life in Southern CA...

with a *.ru domain? Yeah, I bet.