Thanks for letting me know. I was considering watching it, but now I’m scratching that off my list of things to watch. Now I feel bad for Leslie Odom Junior for doing this.
Choose your Leader
-
Sgt. Chip Saunders, King company, 351st infantry
-
Best military mind of all time?
It’s hard to argue against Clausvitz. Dude, the guy wrote the first basic strategy book “On War” that was ever really used by military schools about strategy. And, it’s still in use today.
That’s my thoughts. -
Clausewitz is more philosopher than strategist/commander, although he was an officer in the Prussian army. I read Clausewitz and it was very interesting, and innovative thoughts. But it’s not military in the same sense as Rommel, who was an innovative military field commander.
Clausewitz said that wars and battles have a political goal, we want to force the enemy/opponent to concede, not with economy or diplomatic ways, but with physical force.
Personally I think Clausewitz is much more interesting than Rommel/Patton, I did not read any books by any of those, but he was not famous for being a commanding general or admiral like many military minds, from Agrippa until Tommy Franks.
If we can include also Emperors, not only field commanders, I would say Hadrian and Octavian as one of my favorites.
-
WW2 favorite general- Big fan of Chuikov, CG 62nd Army, Stalingrad, later 8th Guards, Shock Army AND he conquered Berlin. A ruthless SOB, who threw his men into the meat grinder without counting. Not a brilliant tactical leader by any stretch (compared to Manstein for example), but he understood the Blitzkreig notion of the Schwerpunkt.
-
Patton - and I will defend my choice.
Many commanders are famous for how the excelled at some particular facet of war; logistics, politicking, inspiring loyalty, etc etc.
Patton, in my opinion, could be dumped at almost any point in human history, given some sort of fighting force, and he would study the situation and excel.
Thus, I feel it is fair to compare him to naval, air, artillery commanders, etc. because he would probably have been talented at any aspect of making war.
my $.02
-
@ABWorsham:
I beleive Caesar may be one of the most underated commanders.
and criminals.
-
@Frontovik:
@ABWorsham:
I beleive Caesar may be one of the most underated commanders.
and criminals.
There is often a thin line between criminal and hero.
Had Japan some how won the war ( not a chance in hell) after the fire bombings of 1945, General LaMay would have been on trial.
-
everybody was a criminal if you apply today’s standards of law upon them. In 1,000 years most of today’s leaders will be criminals to the eyes of future apes who take over our planet. Just ask Charlton Heston.
-
@Imperious:
everybody was a criminal if you apply today’s standards of law upon them. In 1,000 years most of today’s leaders will be criminals to the eyes of future apes who take over our planet. Just ask Charlton Heston.
Well said!
-
@Imperious:
everybody was a criminal if you apply today’s standards of law upon them. In 1,000 years most of today’s leaders will be criminals to the eyes of future apes who take over our planet. Just ask Charlton Heston.
Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.
It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.
-
Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.
Exactly: Some people also feel the pope is the devil. Some people felt Caesar was good and other felt he was bad. Then and today.
When WW1 ended people felt the kaiser was bad, now he got replaced by Hitler who was a thousand times worse. IN 1,000 years the Kaiser will be another mere product of his age. Hitler will still be bad.
It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.
Well it could lead to disastrous results to think that this means that the ‘laws’ themselves are just and not also a product of the times. IN 1,000 years most of our laws will be considered barbaric and again some will feel they are just fine, while new “Hitlers or Caesars” will invent a new set of them and claim the same rationale. Back and forth.
Laws are not platonic ideal forms, but changing, altering definitions based on the current situation. Things working that way offer more evolution and dynamism.
-
I think the Roman Empire is a very interesting historical epoch, but Gaius Julius Caesar should not be consider criminal unless he killed many people who was not wearing uniforms and weapons. that being said, he was a dictator, not elected by the people as many roman senators. And Caesar was not close to be among the worst roman emperors, like i.e. Nero… :roll:
Julius Caesar was not the worst, but not the best leader for the roman people/citizens. I do believe that Julius Caesar deserves to have his names in the history books though, more than, Pompeii. -
Caesar was great. His conquests liberated savage backward tribes and created a more efficient system of civilization that offered the opportunity for high culture to flourish in western Europe. The Roman Aqueducts, roads, and monetary system and central government provided stability to what were roaming tribes. Of course they also killed and fought wars, but the result of Roman expansion became a systematic order out of chaos. I don’t know of any leader in this age that didn’t fight wars and didn’t kill or also do ‘bad things’ You cant measure historical leaders with the decorum of modern ethics. You have to look at the times and look at the final result and draw a bigger picture.
-
@Imperious:
Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.
Exactly: Some people also feel the pope is the devil. Some people felt Caesar was good and other felt he was bad. Then and today.
When WW1 ended people felt the kaiser was bad, now he got replaced by Hitler who was a thousand times worse. IN 1,000 years the Kaiser will be another mere product of his age. Hitler will still be bad.
The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.
I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.
@Imperious:
It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.
Well it could lead to disastrous results to think that this means that the ‘laws’ themselves are just and not also a product of the times. IN 1,000 years most of our laws will be considered barbaric and again some will feel they are just fine, while new “Hitlers or Caesars” will invent a new set of them and claim the same rationale. Back and forth.
Laws are not platonic ideal forms, but changing, altering definitions based on the current situation. Things working that way offer more evolution and dynamism.
No I think it leads to very fair results. If historians, or history aficionados at least, insist upon making moral judgements about ancient figures, then it is unjust to try them according to modern standards. It’s like figuring somebody’s net worth in 1826 dollars and not adjusting for inflation.
Today we have far stricter laws of war, notions of human dignity, etc. Powerful figures in the past did not have to take those into account when they made their decisions. But it might still be reasonable to say that military figure X was a traitor to his country because he overthrew the legal authorities upon his return from a military campaign, in spite of laws against it.
-
@Imperious:
Caesar was great. His conquests liberated savage backward tribes and created a more efficient system of civilization that offered the opportunity for high culture to flourish in western Europe. The Roman Aqueducts, roads, and monetary system and central government provided stability to what were roaming tribes. Of course they also killed and fought wars, but the result of Roman expansion became a systematic order out of chaos. I don’t know of any leader in this age that didn’t fight wars and didn’t kill or also do ‘bad things’ You cant measure historical leaders with the decorum of modern ethics. You have to look at the times and look at the final result and draw a bigger picture.
Yeah but it wasn’t like he was fighting wars to liberate them.
Wars back then, they were fought for glory, for getting military commanders into the history books. Seriously, it was pretty much all they cared about, guys like Caesar or Alexander. They did it for prestige, not in the name of helping anybody.
But then again, are we so different today?
-
The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.
I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.
Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable. But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.
-
@Imperious:
The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.
I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.
Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable. But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.
Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.
-
@Imperious:
The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.
I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.
Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable. But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.
Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.
Had Hitler been captured, how would Stalin have dealt with the man? I doubt the Soviets would allow the west to view their prized prisoner.
-
@ABWorsham:
@Imperious:
The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.
I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.
Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable. But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.
Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.
Had Hitler been captured, how would Stalin have dealt with the man? I doubt the Soviets would allow the west to view their prized prisoner.
Oh definitely. The Soviets were opposed to trials for the highest guys, maybe in general. They were used to how they treated other Russians.
I think the Soviets were under the impression that the Nazi leaders would just be rounded up and shot. If there was a trial, they wanted it to be a sham.
-
I think they would ‘interview’ Hitler for a number of months…even years before killing him. Too many secrets died with him. I can guarantee he would at some point get the obligatory cyanide capsule smuggled in and cheat the hangman like Himmler and Goering.
But If Hitler won the war all the atrocities would be considered legal, since the conquered nations signing an armistice also abrogate the duty to continue to fight the regime. Look at how France legitimized its official role to Germany and even help the legitimacy of Hitler. If Europe fell the various nations would look at Hitler and fall in line with his policies. Thats not correct, but in terms of legitimacy they have ‘sold their souls to Germany’ to get along.
Suggested Topics
