generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Feb 10, 2005 13:10:40 GMT -5
In terms of the "worst" listing, the military despots with major human rights violations really overshadow those military leaders whose incompetence and/or sadism were mostly limited to the field of battle.
|
|
|
Post by florel on Feb 10, 2005 13:20:09 GMT -5
You're a great specialist on military subject, skinz. Thank you, seven stars, for your contributions. All of your favorite leaders are great men who let their names in history. I hope my sarcastic jokes don't offend you or others. The fact that it was the third crusade, and that this contribution was officially called a "tithe" indicates the heavy involvement of the church in this fundraising effort. Richard may have had little to do with the actual application of the "Saladin tithe" to the British public. (As we know, he was hardly there). Nevertheless, he certainly authorized it. A translation problem has caused confusion of the concept of "the Saladin tithe". Its french translation is "la dime saladine". But this is not correct. The exact translation would be "la decime saladine". (I don't know how I can translate it into English.) But this tax has been called "la dime saladine" from the time of Richard I and Philip Augustus and it became the current expression. The confusion was originated by the fact that the latin word decima is translated into both "dime" and "decime". The "decime" was a kind of special tax imposed on the clerical income by the secular power (king). Who pay for the Church ? The common people, of course. The fact that this tithe had Saladin's name attached to it, speaks volumes regarding his notoriety at that time. The fact that a Tikritian muslim with Kurdish roots could have become so famed and feared in the west is a testament to how remarkable his accomplishments were. You're absolutely right. Saladin was the most famous muslim warrior in medieval european world.
|
|
|
Post by skinz on Feb 10, 2005 15:30:58 GMT -5
You're a great specialist on military subject, skinz. Thanks for the compliment. Specialist? More like student. Forgot some others: Cyrus the Great- formed the persian empire Admiral Themistocles- Defeated the persian army in the naval battle at salamis. Themistocles and Yi Soon Shin have some similar features. -Both defeated an invading army twiced their size - Both knew their surroundings and tricked their opponents to captialize their stengths - both illustrated the importance of naval warfare
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 11, 2005 9:50:15 GMT -5
All of your favorite leaders are great men who let their names in history. I hope my sarcastic jokes don't offend you or others. Not at all Florel . I'm from Philadelphia, if you call that sarcasm, perhaps I should spend some time in France. Up to this point I've found this discussion to be delightful.
|
|
|
Post by florel on Feb 11, 2005 11:34:28 GMT -5
I would like to classify Napoleon under the categorie of "terrible military leader". He was the thief of foreign historical and cultural heritages. Numberless men died because of his conqueror's ambition. He was an imperial dictator. I like Philip Augustus, because he was a man with practical spirit and an excellent administrator let alone his military quality. YSS was also a good administrator. He even had a litterary talent. I prefer military leaders who possess other various (extra-military) qualities. Yue Fei (1103-1142), general of Southern Song dynasty, is also comparable with YSS from other aspect. As I have already mentioned (in the other thread), his life has lots of similar points with YSS. An episode : the death of Yue Fei is related with the origin of chinese breakfast. The popular chinese breakfast You Tiao has originated from You Zha Hui. Some years ago, a Taiwanese woman told me that You Zha Hui signifies "fried (Qin) Hui". Qin Hui was the evil minister who caused the death of Yue Fei. He is very hated by the Chinese. For more informations : www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1817&start=0
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 11, 2005 13:26:24 GMT -5
I would like to classify Napoleon under the categorie of "terrible military leader". He was the thief of foreign historical and cultural heritages. Numberless men died because of his conqueror's ambition. He was an imperial dictator. Hmm... This is presents an interesting discussion. I suppose Napoleon, more than some others, can be classified in either category depending the perspective and the values of the evaluator. For my part we're in agreement Floral. Nevertheless, I believe a case can be made for Napoleon's greatness. YSS was also a good administrator. He even had a litterary talent. I prefer military leaders who possess other various (extra-military) qualities. ROTK fan: Based on this statement, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you must be an admirer of both Cao Cao and Zhuge Liang.
|
|
|
Post by Hachiman Taro on Feb 12, 2005 0:04:08 GMT -5
his is presents an interesting discussion. I suppose Napoleon, more than some others, can be classified in either category depending the perspective and the values of the evaluator. For my part we're in agreement Floral. Nevertheless, I believe a case can be made for Napoleon's greatness. ROTK fan: Based on this statement, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you must be an admirer of both Cao Cao and Zhuge Liang. Yes, I think the evolution of Napoleon is somewhat similar to many military leaders whose exhibited early military brilliance then became more and more obsessed with gaining more power and maintaining it while both losing legitimacy as leaders and also seeming to show declining military judgement as well. In some ways Hideyoshi might fall into such a category. He was undoubtedly the best military mind in the history medieval Japan, and early in his career exhibited much more mercy than his contemporaries, such as Nobunaga. In contrast, his last 10 years seem to be colored by either an insatiable thirst for more power, or a serious decline in his faculties, or both. I do not buy into the commonly held argument that he felt compelled to order the Korean invasion (actually planned as the invasion of China) in order to satisfy the need for reward for his vassals. Needless to say the Korean invasion shows him at his worst both as a human being and as a military leader, given that the campaign was characterized by cruelty, a huge loss of life on both sides, and exceptionally poor military judgement. Another leader I find fascinating is Julius Caesar. No doubt he was brilliant militarily, but he too became increasingly power hungry and ended up toppling his own government to seize power. On top of that he even realized he was doing wrong and wrote about it with great skill. Perhaps this was what truly sets him apart from other leaders of his type. Who else wrote about his own evil and warned future citizens of the rise of such types? As for Kongming and Cao Cao, of course I am an RTK fan and I do very much admire those two. Another I'd add to the list is Liu Ji who was the military mastermind behind the revolution that overthrew of the Mongol empire.
|
|
|
Post by moreshige on Feb 12, 2005 9:34:41 GMT -5
I think there has to be a distinction to be made between what makes a "good" and "terrible" military leader. If you're talking about a leader's strategic skills on the battlefield then I would have to disagree with some of you that Napoleon was a "terrible" leader. But it sounds like you're just assessing his moral character which in this case I would have to agree with you. Leaders like Ghengis Khan (sp?) would also fit into the category of a leader with bad morals. Of course I think most people except mongolians would agree with me here. (Well, conquering military leaders aren't seen in a good light anyway.) But as a military strategist, I think G. Khan was a pure genius.
I think what I will challenge everyone here is to find leaders who are outstanding or deplorable in both their military skills and moral characters.
I'll start first. I think for the most part, the spanish conquistadors were quite deplorable. They were only able to defeat the greater numbers of Indians because they had much better weapons. Other than that, the conquistadors unintentionally killed off the native population by disease. And as for their morals? They had none. Not only did they raped and killed off everybody in their way, they destroyed or looted vast hords of cultural treasures and artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by MasterCrabby on Feb 12, 2005 9:48:55 GMT -5
The conquistadors and their regime ultimately enslaved and worked to death so many natives that they brought in africans to replace them. Columbus had a brother who bred dogs specialized in the disemboweling of natives. The whole mentality was that the "Indians" they met were viewed as subhuman and not subject to any redress of their violated rights. What irks me about Napoleon was the way he stranded his army in Egypt and ran away to save his own neck. He never sent any help afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by florel on Feb 14, 2005 17:22:01 GMT -5
The meaning of "terrible" one can be interpreted in your way as you post your favorite or detested military leaders. Personally, I have tendancy to evaluate historical figures in comprehensive way (political, economical, military, cultural, ontological, etc.). That's why I prefer "intelligent" military leaders who were capable of construct a society rather than only destory some of them. A military genius with no moral reflections and with no constructive perspective is nothing but a killing machine and horrible butcher. The most serious strategic blunder of Napoleon is the Continental System and his Russian expedition. You have well noticed, Hachiman Taro, that Napoleon or Hideyoshi's case is a recurring leitmotiv in history. ROTK fan: Based on this statement, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you must be an admirer of both Cao Cao and Zhuge Liang. You've hit it, seven stars. Zhuge Liang is my great favourite in ROTK. About Cao Cao, I think he is very interesting character. He is not one dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by ID on Feb 14, 2005 17:33:44 GMT -5
Historically, Cao Cao is the greatest. He was also the first man to write a commentary on the Art of War. He wrote a strategy book as well, but most of it is still among the ruins of ancient China.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 15, 2005 9:56:27 GMT -5
Historically, Cao Cao is the greatest. He was also the first man to write a commentary on the Art of War. He wrote a strategy book as well, but most of it is still among the ruins of ancient China. Actually, the 36 stratagems are older, and the original author is unknown. However, I do not know whether or not it is the initial work of its type. In addition, Sun Tzu (as you know) holds the distinction of writing the "Art of War". Luo Guanzhong depicts Sun Tzu as an ancestor of the Sun family of Wu. Personally, I have tendancy to evaluate historical figures in comprehensive way (political, economical, military, cultural, ontological, etc.). That's why I prefer "intelligent" military leaders who were capable of construct a society rather than only destory some of them. A military genius with no moral reflections and with no constructive perspective is nothing but a killing machine and horrible butcher. Sun Tzu instructs that it is better to capture a city whole, than to destroy in the process. A strategy that allows for victory along with the preservation of life is superior to one that delivers victory through more destructive means. (It's not a direct quote, but this is the spirit of that portion of the text.) So Sun Tzu would support your perspective in this matter Florel. You've hit it, seven stars. Zhuge Liang is my great favourite in ROTK. About Cao Cao, I think he is very interesting character. He is not one dimensional. You can purchase "Mastering the Art of War" by Zhuge Liang. We still have it fully in tact. Here it is at Amazon.com: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877735131/qid=1108477633/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0000851-0742319?v=glance&s=booksI pose that Kong Ming is Cao Cao's equal. I will qualify that by saying that he clearly surpasses Cao in some areas (ie. military strategy, intelligence, etc), while rivalling him in others (ie. musical ability, confidence), and is surpassed by him in areas (ie. poetry, life position). Neither is lacking in any of these areas, but they rival one another in each of them. The most serious strategic blunder of Napoleon is the Continental System and his Russian expedition. You have well noticed, Hachiman Taro, that Napoleon or Hideyoshi's case is a recurring leitmotiv in history. Russian expedition is arguably the same mistake that ultimately began the end to WWI.
|
|
|
Post by seven stars on Feb 15, 2005 14:03:46 GMT -5
Luo Guanzhong depicts Sun Tzu as an ancestor of the Sun family of Wu. Sorry, I shouldn't have represented Sun Jian's ties to Sun Tzu as a literary depiction. As I understand it, they are genuine family ties. As many of you are aware, Luo Guanzhong is not entirely in agreement with the earlier San Guo Zhi record of the Three Kingdoms period. Unfortunately, I am not the best person to be separating fact from fiction on some of those smaller details.
|
|
|
Post by florel on Feb 15, 2005 19:41:56 GMT -5
Thank you for the book information, seven stars. I pose that Kong Ming is Cao Cao's equal. I will qualify that by saying that he clearly surpasses Cao in some areas (ie. military strategy, intelligence, etc), while rivalling him in others (ie. musical ability, confidence), and is surpassed by him in areas (ie. poetry, life position). Neither is lacking in any of these areas, but they rival one another in each of them. I had read ROTK fifteen years ago. If I read it again now or someday I'm sure I will re-appreciate Cao Cao and many other characters.
|
|
|
Post by MasterCrabby on Feb 15, 2005 20:49:42 GMT -5
I should mention Belisarius, who was a principal general under Justinian. I had read a good historical novel centering around Theodora, who rose to become Empress of Byzantium. Belisarius was a key to putting down factional riots in the book "The Female". I think my wife threw it out, but I'd reccommend it. Belisarius apparently went on to retake some of Italy, but it was pretty much shot by then. The history of the Byzantine Empire is seldom considered, but there are many interesting stories around this empire. Obviously, Sultan Mehmet II could be credited with some important strategic and tactical successes. The use of forced attack by driving the first wave of common troops on pain of immediate death by others sent at their heels was a notable cruelty.
|
|