Test



  • test



  • it looks like it worked.



  • That depents on what this person is testing 😉

    Greetz J.



  • Sticking his toe in the water? :-?


  • 2019 Moderator

    I like seeing those Forest Quotes, Helluva story behind that guy.



  • Yeah, I wish more people knew about him. If there were more generals like him the war would have been a lot shorter too! Quite a character!



  • I reckon Nathan Forrest did the Confederacy right 😛
    But if there was a war, I’ve love to have his history. A private when the war of Northern Aggression broke out, he rose through the ranks to become a Lieutenant General. For those intrested, check out the “God of War.” It ranks among Sun’s Tzu’s Art of War 😎


  • 2019 Moderator

    Just imagine if Forest had been able to go to West Point and actualy study millitary theory! and the business success he had before the war makes you wonder what kind of general Bill Gates would be. 😉


  • 2019 Moderator

    And hey what about his great grandson Forest Gump!



  • Bill Gates riding into battle!? Sorry but a squared-eye, geeky guy running around with a computer does not represent my God of War. 😉

    Worker: “The server is down again!”
    Bill Gates: “Excellent! Windows 2003 is ready to ship!”



  • Hey, watch it! That is exactly what hindered Forrest! There were few Confederate genl’s who had any respect for him because he had no military education! Bill Gates (excuse my french) probably WOULD be a good general. That probably goes along with why Sun Tzu is good for business. Something to think about!



  • Forrest and Bill are two different kind of businessmen! At least Forrest had sound judgment and good morals. Bill Gates ran around swindling and stealing other people’s stuff, then calling it his own. Actually, I take that back. Gates would be good a raiding Union Supply Depots, then claiming the stuff for the Confederacy! 😛

    “Good artist copy; great artist steal.”



  • 😮 😄 :-?



  • @TG:

    Forrest and Bill are two different kind of businessmen! At least Forrest had sound judgment and good morals. Bill Gates ran around swindling and stealing other people’s stuff, then calling it his own. Actually, I take that back. Gates would be good a raiding Union Supply Depots, then claiming the stuff for the Confederacy! 😛

    Sounds like a great plan! Too bad more Confederate leaders didn’t try it. :lol:



  • Yes, Gates then could sold the stolen weapons and equipment back to the North and make a profit for the South! 😉
    But first, Gates would have to “bug” (replace all the parts with faulty ones) the equipment and make it “crash,” causing the guns to malfunction when the North tried to fire them. This in turn would cause the North to purchase the “upgrade” from Gates, giving the South even more money! Bill Gates, you’re a genius! 😛



  • Well, as they say, “business is war!”
    When i was a territory manager for a (large) pharmaceutical company, i read Sun Tzu’s Art of War.
    Competition the difference is instead of spending money and forming corporate alliances, etc., you are spending people, merging forces, etc.
    Anticipation is the watchword in business no less than in war. Be the biggest dog on the block, utilize the fog (of war or numbers) to your advantage, take no prisoners, have no mercy, work long hours, build connections, use the big guns appropriately, etc.
    you get where i’m coming from.



  • :evil:

    Yeh…Nathan Bedford Forest was an AWESOME guy. He kicked ass against the Union and after the war he went home, dusted himself off, had a cup of coffee, and put on a nice, shiny white Ku Klux Klan robe and hunted the ni**ers!!!

    Lets not get too carried away here, guys; Nathan Bedford Forest was a MONSTER…

    :x

    Ozone27


  • 2019 Moderator

    I never said he was a nice guy, I was comenting on the fact that he was a great strategist, he was self taught, and the youngest general in the civil war.



  • Yeah, there’s a difference between military strategy and personal ethics (Good example being the damnYankee, William T. Sherman).



  • Forrest got out of the KKK when it got too violent for him. If there were more “monsters” instead of Hoods and Braggs the war would have been different, most likely shorter. Believe me. 'Nuff said.



  • @TG:

    Yeah, there’s a difference between military strategy and personal ethics (Good example being the damnYankee, William T. Sherman).

    TG:

    But don’t you think military commanders ought to be held to the highest moral standards? After all, these guys don’t just “go away” after a war, they stay on as powerful figures–as both W.T. Sherman and N.B. Forest show. W.T. Sherman devastated the South, and the North had little or no ability or desire to invest in “reconstruction” (political expedients aside). He also hated Native Americans with a passion (even though he was named after one) and commented on his visit to the 1870 front in the Franco-Prussian War as attache to the Prussian General Staff that he wanted to see “more refugees, more burning villages”. Morals were of no consequence to this guy–the object was to WIN no matter what the cost or who (on the other side) it hurts.The war might indeed be shorter, but it certainly will be bloodier and more painful for all involved…

    bangalore:

    Then you’ve got everybody’s “best friend” Nathan Bedford Forest. So this guy was a tenacious soldier and a military visionary (he was). But a peace involved with this fellow would be (and in fact was) an absolute nightmare! I don’t care whether he could stomach the “violence” of the KKK agenda–he helped to START it; in fact his name recognition was a powerful inducement for early members to join! He HATED AFRICAN-AMERICANs and worked to secure their “second-class” status in the South that continued through the early 1960’s (and continues to this day throughout the U.S.). Yeah, this guy was a cavalry genius, but the fact that a man of his dubious moral calibre could achieve high command in the Army of the Confederacy is a testament to that institution’s moral degeneracy. Yeah, the Confederates were fighting for the cause of self-determination (surely a worthy cause), but that cause was a SHAM, because their intention was to shut out from that so-called-“self-determination” half their population!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

    Now I’m not some anti-South nut that has no affinity for the rebel mystique (I am, after all, an American) but lets be real here–the cause was an EVIL one, and commanders must be held responsible for the causes for which they choose to fight. After all, THEY are the guys w/ the guns!

    Ozone27



  • It’s total war. You do what you got to do to win the war at all costs. And if it means burning down a town or even spilling some civilian blood…well I guess that’s just the toils of war.



  • true Candyman,
    but i have a lot of sympathy for Ozone’s point.
    War is evil, by nature. At the same time, the concept of it being conducted by “gentlemen” is, i think something that prevents it from being even more unpalatable. Needless cruelty can be an important negative for a commanding officer - particularly where morale of his troops are concerned, as well as recently vanquished foes. Furthermore, our military leaders often assume political leadership (if they do not already have some). If we hold our political leaders to any kind of moral or ethical line, shouldn’t the same be true of military leadership?
    (now, of course whether i needed to choose between my general being an ahole who got the job done properly, and some ineffective bleeding heart, then i’ll go with the ahole, however the South was not short of effective generals in the civil war - unlike the North).



  • war is always won by the side that stoops the lowest



  • @Ozone:

    But don’t you think military commanders ought to be held to the highest moral standards? After all, these guys don’t just “go away” after a war, they stay on as powerful figures–as both W.T. Sherman and N.B. Forest show. W.T. Sherman devastated the South, and the North had little or no ability or desire to invest in “reconstruction” (political expedients aside). He also hated Native Americans with a passion (even though he was named after one) and commented on his visit to the 1870 front in the Franco-Prussian War as attache to the Prussian General Staff that he wanted to see “more refugees, more burning villages”. Morals were of no consequence to this guy–the object was to WIN no matter what the cost or who (on the other side) it hurts.The war might indeed be shorter, but it certainly will be bloodier and more painful for all involved…

    Yes, Generals should be held to highest of moral standards. That is why fellow Confederates hate him so much. However, the problem with Confederates was that we forget to realize that all of Sherman’s tactics were not “march to the closest city and burn it down.” Any second rate moron can do that. Maybe his most infamous action, but Sherman was also a very good military strategist. His flanking manuevers were widely studied and practiced by another general with the name, “General George S. Patton.” Also, the inability to keep such a large army intact and a single fighting force (many people forget how difficult this is to do) is commendable.

    But here’s another question, if war crime trials were around back then, do you think Sherman should’ve been tried and if so, convicted? This would be similar to the pilots who dropped “the bomb” over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyone feel free to answer this.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

48
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts