What is your FAVORITE heroe/Leader/warrior in history?

Mine is Dom Afonso Henriques - The Conqueror.

For who dont know he was the first King of Portugal, He fougth his own mom to have Portugal, and battled the moors to regain all the territory. He was the master warrior, like the heroe in "braveheart" but didn´t knew how to read lol.

Read his Biography, its a very good text made by a brazilian woman and tranlated, so it´s not Boring

Português: http://www.vidaslusofonas.pt/d.afonso_henriques.htm

English: http://www.vidaslusofonas.pt/afonso_henriques2.htm

Some extracts:

"She doesn't understand her son, a child who, at 13, already shows signs of genius, in the good as well as in the bad sense of the word. At that tender age, he simply ignores the cardinal who conducts the ceremony at which he is to knighted, and proclaims himself a knight. He refuses divine intervention. Just like Napoleon, a few centuries later. Pity that he doesn't speak French, the language of sophisticated folk, so that his gesture would not be left out of the history books"

This one makes me cry of pride:

"It's a mistake to believe that Afonso Henriques does nothing but promote political intrigues, making and destroying alliances. The man is more like a wild animal. He fights alongside his soldiers, fighting as an equal, without any hierarchical privileges. His troops do far more than respect him: they revere him. They will obey any order he gives."

<--- (look under my name)

Ramesses II, baby! Woohoo![dance]:egypt:

Malborough for his Blenhiem campaign, or Wellington for his entire freaking career :D

prince eugene of savoy, winner over the turks at zenta and petrovarada, taker of belgrade, malborough's partner in the victories at blemheim,oudenarde and malplaquet

My favorite is probably Che Guevara or T.E. Lawrence.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara was bron in Argentina on June 14, 1928. He studied medicine there and became a doctor, travelling in South America healing the injured. In 1953 he went to Guatemala where he joined the government of Jacabo Arbenz Guzman who was later overthrown in a CIA-sponsored coup. He travelled to Mexico where he met Raul Castro who told him of the situation in Cuba. Raul introduced Guevara to Fidel, and in a 10 hour long discussion at night, Che Guevara managed to convince Fidel to join the communist cause in Cuba. Fidel, Raul, Guevara and 78 other revolutionaries boarded a ship and went to cuba. All but 16 were captured or killed, and those who survived escaped to the mountains and eventually defeated Batista. A few years later, Guevara left Cuba to join the revolution in Bolivia. He was captured in the jungle by the Bolivian government and, before being shot, declared "shoot me, you're only going to kill a man."

Spartacus. Gladiators were awesome (having done a few reports/projects on them). Too bad that revolt had such a beheading ending.

Li Shimin, or the emperor Tang Taizong, of Tang China. China's greatest warrior-king, and an able administrator as well.

Though the way he came to power was pretty bloody; included killing his two brother princes single-handedly.

George Washington, Robert E. Lee, and George Patton.

Robert E. Lee probably elicits the most emotional reaction.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus.

Well, there are a lot of them... But I must pick one, I'd choose either Córdoba, the Great Captain (who did an amazing campaing for the Kingdom of Aragon in early XVI century in Italy) or Hannibal, the great leader of Carthago.

Rhett Butler.

napolean

Athorilanta! (It can be cracked like YUMBO!)

But for real: Washington!

Well, as far as I know the first Great Captain was Alexander.

(lthread jack: do you know who is burried in Alexander the Grape's tomb? Alexander the Raisin.)

He did more before he was 30 than most of the other "Great Captains" like Julius Caesar, Hanibal, Gustafus Adolphus (Sweden), Charlemagne, Napoleon and some add Scipio Africanus (for beating Hanibal) and Sir Arthur Welsley (Duke of Wellington) for beating Napoleon.

Modern Great Captains are a little difficult as they had more men under command, but less responsibility. (Unless you want to include Hitler and Stalin) as they were tools of the state rather than the state itself. Wellington and Scipio were not the state they were generals for, but others were the heads of state. Maybe not Hanibal, I'm not very clear on the political structure of Carthage.

Modern Great Captains include Washington, Lee, Grant, Pershing, Marshall (maybe Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur) for the USA Rommel, Guderian maybe some WWI generals like Hindenberg and Ludendorf for the Germans, Slim maybe Montgomery, Lord Kitchner, probably I am leaving out some Victorian greats, who was at the Sudan? for the British, Amazing how few countries history I know well enough to name any names. The Russians had some very good commanders, Kutsof against Napoleon (General Winter has always been one of their best) I can't come up with the WW2 names right now but that doesn't mean they weren't great. The Japanese in WW2 had at least two, we shot down one in a plane he planned Pearl Harbor but warned against it. And the guy that took Singapore. Might want to consider Chang Kai Check and Mao maybe not great generals but as overall commanders did a lot with not much. I'm sure I am leaving out a lot. Do I have to list Charles De Gaul or Marshal Petain? I left out Patton on purpose, not that he wasn't a very good General, but he commanded what, a Army? In an army with Army Groups. He wan't a great Captain in the sense of a Theater Commander and/or head of state.

I admit ATG was very young to be a conqueror, but it was just bad lack of the draw when his father died. It would have Gustafus Adolphus or some other royal if their father had died earlier. Not only did Washington help form a nation but he fought for it. Napoleon on the other hand stole what others worked for during the revolution and declared himself Emperor of the French. So Washington is the best all around leader.

Although he did have some rather dubious thoughts about the Native Americans on the borders....

Mine would have to be Ghandi.

Genghis Khan

Well if you are going that direction, why not Jesus, or Mohamad or Moses or Budda or Confusis or Zoroaster or the guy who invented the Sikh religion, or any of a lot of prophets or charismatic posibly ficticious national leaders (Roulus and Remus for Rome, for example)

There are a lot of non-military Saints, including modern figures like Sister Theresa or the Red Cross founders and operators. The term Leader is pretty flexible.

the guy who invented the Sikh religion

Nanak?

Originally written by ANGELA DUTRA DE MENEZES

Afonso Henriques expels the Moors from Lisbon and a number of other Portuguese cities

:eek: - with a little [actually, big] help from his friends - the 2nd Crusade !


Originally posted by raen

Very few people know, but it's thanks to the political shrewdness of Afonso Henriques that Portugal is the first European country to establish itself as an independent state.



:lol:

Is this what Portuguese-speaking people are taught? :eek:

ON TOPIC:

Heraclius

The guy who Geoffrey Regan calls "the first Crusader"

Well, how can you beat the excitement of this man's career. He came to the throne in 610 with the Roman Empire in a critical almost hopeless position. The Avars (who probably introduced the stirrup to the West) and Slavs were assailing the Danube frontier and had broken through into Macedonia, Thrace and the Peloponnese. In the east, that war-monger Khusrau II was on the attack. He took Damascus in 613, Jerusalem in 614 (destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and capturing the Holy Cross) and Egypt in 619. The empire was on the verge of destruction, more so than it had ever been or ever would be again until at least Manzikert. In August of 626 while Heraclius and his army were in distant Lazica, a Persian army attacked Constantinople from the east while an army of Avars, Slavs, and Bulgars attacked from the west and from the sea. But the brave Romans managed to fight them off. The next year, in an amazing act of daring, Heraclius grouped his forces and invaded Persia, winning at Nineveh and threatening the vastly overstretched Persians with the destruction of their capital. The Persians surrendered all their gains, and in 630 Heraclius delivered the True Cross back to Jerusalem.

But if all this weren't enough, within a couple of years, that "armed prophet" history known to history as Muhammed died leaving a strong war-ready Arabian state as his legacy, armed with nomad tactical superiority and the new faith that he left them. In 634 the Arab armies invaded Syria and defeated Theodore, the emperor's brother, in a string of battles. Heraclius raised a large army that attacked the Arabs near the Yarmuk, a tributary of the Jordan, in the fall of 636. After a successful beginning, the larger Byzantine army was defeated allowing the conquest of Syria. The Byzantine defeat also led to the Arabs quickly taking Mesopotamia, Armenia and eventually Egypt. However, Heraclius's policy of defence in depth saved the Empire, in contrast to the Persians, who were destroyed.

Originally posted by calgacus


:eek: - with a little [actually, big] help from his friends - the [b]2nd Crusade !




Yes, and whats the problem? He was smart enough to get their help. Dont try to destroy this too with your lack of knowledge.


Originally posted by calgacus


:lol:

Is this what Portuguese-speaking people are taught? :eek:

Please Justify your affirmation.

Originally posted by raen


Yes, and whats the problem? He was smart enough to get their help. Dont try to destroy this too with your lack of knowledge.


My lack of knowledge :lol:




Originally posted by raen

Please Justify your affirmation.

It's simply not true, but I find it very interesting that some Portuguese-speaking people think it is. :eek:

Originally posted by calgacus


My lack of knowledge :lol:




ahh sorry, must be lack of .... does not woth to say....

Originally posted by calgacus


It's simply not true, but I find it very interesting that Portuguese-speaking people think it is. :eek:

Whats true then, That is what I asked....

It is said in the sense that it has the oldest stable borders in Europe (the borders haven't changed since the XIII century), but I guess we all like simplicity. But you are right calgacus.

Anyway, I'm sorry raen, but that article is filled with a bit of nationalistic crap that's simply not true. In particular the part you quoted about his knighthood is something that has no evidence and was made up a few centuries later, but was perpetrated by the historians of Salazar's regime who idolised Afonso Henriques.

The man was still a force of nature, and worthy of admiration, but there is no need to make him a demigod.

Originally posted by MCdread
Anyway, I'm sorry raen, but that article is filled with a bit of nationalistic crap that's simply not true. In particular the part you quoted about his knighthood is something that has no evidence and was made up a few centuries later, but was perpetrated by the historians of Salazar's regime who idolised Afonso Henriques.

The man was still a force of nature, and worthy of admiration, but there is no need to make him a demigod.

Yes maybe nationalistic, but my problem is not that, my problem is calgacus, go read civ3 conquests section and you will be clarified.

Well, you wouldn't be the first person having problems with calgacus... :mischief: What's the problem with Conquests' section?

On topic though, I've finished reading the entire article and my advice to you is definitely to find other sources about Afonso Henriques, cause this one is very inacurate and based on several mistifications. I conquer, however, that removed all of those, he was still a great king and a great leader, and in our history is hard to find equals in terms of leaders/warriors. I can only think of a few names: Nuno Alvares Pereira, João II, Afonso de Albuquerque, marquis of Pombal.

Originally posted by MCdread
Well, you wouldn't be the first person having problems with calgacus... :mischief: What's the problem with Conquests' section?


I said that I was going to combine Spain and Portugal for my own personal civ game. Even though it was a personal thing, there are three Portuguese guys who won't leave me alone on the matter :cry:

Originally posted by calgacus


I said that I was going to combine Spain and Portugal for my own personal civ game. Even though it was a personal thing, there are three Portuguese guys who won't leave me alone on the matter :cry:

Wrong!!! you are hidding things!!!

@MCdread: go here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1430690#post1430690

Originally posted by MCdread
It is said in the sense that it has the oldest stable borders in Europe (the borders haven't changed since the XIII century), but I guess we all like simplicity. But you are right calgacus.

Hey man, I don't want to rain on your parade (Hey I got an aliens quote in! :D ) but apart from swapping Berwick and the like with the Scots, England hasn't changed that much as a nation since that time either in terms of geographical areas....

Perhaps I'm being dumb, but to my recollection, with exceptions like Berwick (that changed hands numerous times) England's been one entity since Norman times.

@raen: I managed to found the thread.
@privatehudson: the point is that England isn't a state, it is part of the british state, while the borders of the portuguese nation-state are the same since that period, plus, didn't you have a a foot at France at some period in the XV century? ;)

@raen & calgacus: after reading the thread, I have to say you are both wrong on some accounts and right on others. I'll just write about the Portugal vs. Spain issue, cause it's too damn late here and I have to go to bed. :p Simply put: Portugal and Spain are neither that different as raen and portuguese think and portuguese people in general like to think, but they are neither that similar as calgacus and northern european and anglo-saxon people in general believe. It is possible to draw a line between both countries in terms of culture and particulary mentality, although Spain is a very diverse country on their own, unlike Portugal that is very homogenous (sp?) from a cultural point of view. But on the other hand, it's not like we're alien to each other, and although we never looked at each other's face until the late XX century, one cannot forget that our cultural substrat is indeed the same, from pre-roman times to the El-Tarik's invasion. Plus, there is that little detail of Manuel I (or was it João III) writing to the spanish monarchs complaining of the abusive use of the title King of Spain, because Portugal was a part of Spain too, and definitily not subject to the so called King of Spain.

But History follows her path and after 800 years of Portugal as a separate identity than that of the rest of the peninsula, it can't be ignored that this country followed a different path and nowadays you only have to visit both Spain and Portugal to realise the difference, even if that was not allways the case.

As for calgacus changes in his civ file, do you really care about that? :p Anyway, raen, I notice someone asking where was calgacus from. Well, calgacus is from Scotland, and very proud of it, as much as you and portuguese (the poster) from Portugal, so you just have to introduce the words Britain and England. :mischief: (Although I seem to remember calgacus has a peculiar view on this, which I can't really remember...). At least we have our own independent country. :D

Cheers.

England was and is a kingdom and country, it has continued to occupy the modern day england since roughly William the conquerer. Whilst your defenition may be accurate it is also pointlessly pedantic as it is as much a point against portugal as it is for it. Whilst you may have remained in portugal in terms of your nation, we on the other hand expanded ours to other areas such as Scotland and so on, we only lost parts of France, we maintained most of the UK though. The nation is Britian, my nationality is British, my country is England, there's a distinct difference.

Besides, you know Napoleon would have annexed you had we not turned up ;)

Originally posted by MCdread

As for calgacus changes in his civ file, do you really care about that? :p
Cheers.

Of course not!! he can do what he want a please him, but he cant say that Portugal was not a great power in their one time, maybe you missed that part because is late, that part is the one that bothers me ;)

privatehudson, you're right. England is effectively the same state as the UK. All that occured in 1707 was the annexation of Scotland and a virtually meaningless change of name. The English had been using "Britain" and "England" interchangably since the High Middle Ages. England was a state since the dark ages.

Originally posted by raen


Of course not!! he can do what he want a please him, but he cant say that Portugal was not a great power in their one time, maybe you missed that part because is late, that part is the one that bothers me ;)

I said it wasn't a "super power" :p, but I confirmed it was a "great power". You're problem then, it seems, is that you pretend the two terms mean the same :eek:

Actually, they would have split it between France and Spain under the agreement made with Godoy, the spanish minister.

But sure, it is just a technicality of little importance, but with all the "troubles" in France and Ireland (and the welsh case is also dubious, cause Wales is not a part of the kingdom of England, I think, but it used to be, when it was conquered in the middle ages), the english borders haven't been as much stable.

Originally posted by calgacus


I said it wasn't a "super power" :p, but I confirmed it was a "great power". You're problem then, it seems, is that you pretend the two terms mean the same :eek:

Here we go again...I say the same thing... does not worth it....

Originally posted by MCdread
Actually, they would have split it between France and Spain under the agreement made with Godoy, the spanish minister.

But sure, it is just a technicality of little importance, but with all the "troubles" in France and Ireland (and the welsh case is also dubious, cause Wales is not a part of the kingdom of England, I think, but it used to be, when it was conquered in the middle ages), the english borders haven't been as much stable.

England's borders have been stable, england is a country, all we have done is united a number of countries together since then either by crown or by act. England though has always remained an individual country to the others within the union. Since it has remained a country all it has lost is more colonies and fellow partners in a union (whether the partnership be willing or otherwise). To portray the loss of either Wales or Eire as a loss to the country of England is inccorrect as they were never really part of the country in the first place.

And whomever split the country, Portugal's borders would have changed no? ;)

Originally posted by MCdread

Well, calgacus is from Scotland, and very proud of it, as much as you and portuguese (the poster) from Portugal, so you just have to introduce the words Britain and England. ::mischief: (Although I seem to remember calgacus has a peculiar view on this, which I can't really remember...). At least we have our own independent country.



That's just trouble-making. They don't need to know where I'm from. :scan:

Originally posted by MCdread


But sure, it is just a technicality of little importance, but with all the "troubles" in France and Ireland (and the welsh case is also dubious, cause Wales is not a part of the kingdom of England, I think, but it used to be, when it was conquered in the middle ages), the english borders haven't been as much stable.


Likewise, Portugal's border's fluctuated if we count overseas possesions.

But just to make it clear: as I said, it is a technicality without importance. What really is important in my view is when the country borns and her national identity with it, and in that way, it is obvious that there are loads of countries older than Portugal in Europe, England among them. Portugal as an independent state was born in the late XI/early XII century, but it is not a prudent approach to mention the existence of a national identity and conscience before the end of the XIV century and the sucession crisis of 1383-85.

@raen & calgacus: yes, I read that debate too, but I fail to see th fuss. Although calgacus doesn't seem very impressed with Portugal's history, he did say that in her day Portugal was a great power. He just seems to reserve the term superpower to USA and USSR and a specific historic contest, and I must say i agree with him. And this, mind you, from a person that had a couple of heated discussions with calgacus in the past. ;)

Originally posted by calgacus

That's just trouble-making. They don't need to know where I'm from. :scan:


It should be rather obvious with all those polls about "Should Scotland be added to Civ?" :p

Originally posted by calgacus


That's just trouble-making. They don't need to know where I'm from. :scan:


Dont worry, I already knew ;) it´s obvious, the polls ;)

ok, Mcdread´s words calmed me down...I will let you alone.. for now....

It's perfectly obvious, nobody who lives in America is that pro-scotish unless they were born there ;)

Well, there's Arthur Herman, the great modern historian, who recently wrote the book How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609809997/102-9708013-3077717?v=glance) :p

Originally posted by MCdread


It should be rather obvious with all those polls about "Should Scotland be added to Civ?" :p

Well, the user Portuguese stills thinks I'm American :lol:

Originally posted by MCdread

@raen & calgacus: yes, I read that debate too, but I fail to see th fuss. Although calgacus doesn't seem very impressed with Portugal's history, he did say that in her day Portugal was a great power. He just seems to reserve the term superpower to USA and USSR and a specific historic contest, and I must say i agree with him. And this, mind you, from a person that had a couple of heated discussions with calgacus in the past. ;)

A Portuguese person who agrees with me :eek:

- I'll never recover :D

Yes yes, it'll go well on the shelf with the books about the Cornish village that Jesus lived in and Daniken's books on the true history of the ancient civilisations, I file them under "b" for.... well you guess ;)

Originally posted by privatehudson
Yes yes, it'll go well on the shelf with the books about the Cornish village that Jesus lived in and Daniken's books on the true history of the ancient civilisations, I file them under "b" for.... well you guess ;)

Actually, Herman is a serious and elite historian. American intellectuals are taking the book seriously.

Originally posted by calgacus


A Portuguese person who agrees with me :eek:

- I'll never recover :D

We Portuguese are open-minded, I cant say that from you.

Sorry, couldn´t held this ;)

Originally posted by raen


We Portuguese are open-minded, I cant say that from you.


:eek: I am extremely open minded :eek:

I'm shocked that anyone would think otherwise. :cry:

Originally posted by calgacus


Actually, Herman is a serious and elite historian. American intellectuals are taking the book seriously.

Yes I'm sure that without Scotland the world would be in the dark ages wouldn't it? ;) Whilst you jocks may have invented a lot, my ability to believe you created the world as we know it, and that somehow it would be so very different now is a little limited :p

Originally posted by privatehudson


Yes I'm sure that without Scotland the world would be in the dark ages wouldn't it? ;) Whilst you jocks may have invented a lot, my ability to believe you created the world as we know it, and that somehow it would be so very different now is a little limited :p

Well, read the book then. His arguments are subtle, but I think much of what he argues is pretty convincing.

The Scots have a pretty negative image, both in the English-speaking world and (esp.) continental Europe. Portuguese, French, Italian, Scandinavian, Greek and (esp) Polish people all brag about their achievements. Scots do so rarely. If they did so more, their image might not be so bad. Also, films like Braveheart, and nationalist tendencies to portray Scotland as "Ireland II" don't help either.

It doesn't help when they totally screw up the history as well :D ;)

Anyway, I'm not trying to say they're useless, or detract from their contribution to either europe or the UK, but I'm sorry, these things are far too intertwined to suggest that without scotland these inventions/theories would not come about or that the world would now be much worse off.

And I can't read the book, firstly I have no money and secondly I have more books I need to read than most people I know have books...... :(

Originally posted by privatehudson
It doesn't help when they totally screw up the history as well :D ;)


If you're referring to what they teach in schools, then, wow, you couldn't be more correct. The only things I was ever taught about Scottish history in school were the battles of Flodden and Culloden. :(


Originally posted by privatehudson

secondly I have more books I need to read than most people I know have books...... :(

In exactly the same position :cry:

Sticking to military leaders the ones that fascinate me are Lee and Hitler. Probably because of my heritage.

Originally posted by calgacus


Portuguese .... people all brag about their achievements... Also, films like Braveheart, and nationalist tendencies to portray Scotland as "Ireland II" don't help either.

You putted Portuguese in first place lol I dont think so, we dont brag about the Scots achievments, we know very few about Scotland, and for us braveheart movie shows (IMO) that scotland is really cool ;) We Portuguese battled for independence just like the Scots did (in diffrent ways of course), so we are very much alike in that. We Portuguese are always putted aside in Europe...are always the worst in everything, so I have so much to complaint as you ;)

Dont make confusions about me because I dont like you in particular, but maybe I will change my opinion with time :)

PS: I am listening to Scotish music rigth now, it is marvelous ;)

If you're referring to what they teach in schools, then, wow, you couldn't be more correct. The only things I was ever taught about Scottish history in school were the battles of Flodden and Culloden

Didn't we like WIN those two? ;) Actually you're unlucky, I had a scotish history teacher for 5 years who pretty much went off lesson topics all the time to say the other matters the curriculum didn't wish to say, she excelled at reminding us about Scotish victories, mind you, only took 5 minutes to do that ;)

And no, I meant braveheart, It's romantic nonsense that glorified a cause that whilst at it's heart was good, was not entirely as perfect as they made it out to be. The love interest between Wallace and the Queen is laughable and only good in terms of how they even managed to pull it off. It's a nice visual and musical fest, it's a pile of steaming horse manure as a history lesson though.

Originally posted by raen


we dont brag about the Scots achievments,

No, I was meaning that you brag about your own achievements.

Originally posted by raen


PS: I am listening to Scotish music rigth now, it is marvelous ;)


Really, what in particular?

Originally posted by privatehudson


Didn't we like WIN those two? ;) Actually you're unlucky, I had a scotish history teacher for 5 years who pretty much went off lesson topics all the time to say the other matters the curriculum didn't wish to say, she excelled at reminding us about Scotish victories, mind you, only took 5 minutes to do that ;)


Yep, the Scots lost those two. But the Scots had as many victories as defeats. Bannockburn was the biggest English defeat of the middle ages, and effectively crippled the English kingdom's expansionist policies for a generation.


Originally posted by privatehudson



And no, I meant braveheart, It's romantic nonsense that glorified a cause that whilst at it's heart was good, was not entirely as perfect as they made it out to be. The love interest between Wallace and the Queen is laughable and only good in terms of how they even managed to pull it off. It's a nice visual and musical fest, it's a pile of steaming horse manure as a history lesson though.

Braveheart certainly has its problems. My main problem is that it portrays the Scots as more backward than they were....again part of a general attempt to make Scotland "Ireland II".

Originally posted by calgacus

Really, what in particular?

At least there is one that is really scottish -> Celtic - River Dance - Scottish Song

The others say celtic or Irish too. I really like this celtic musics, makes you relax ;)

Riverdance is Irish...:(

Braveheart certainly has its problems. My main problem is that it portrays the Scots as more backward than they were....again part of a general attempt to make Scotland "Ireland II".

And my main problem was that they portrayed the english as either:

A) Evil
B) Stupid
C) Useless
D) Traitors
E) Murderers
F) All of the above

England and the English became the typical hollywood bad guy when in reality we were not the only ones doing the invading and pillaging...

And Banockburn was under a moron of a King with no idea how to fight wars or run a country, under anyone of our kings with a small amount of sense, the battle would never have been fought. We proved our mettle under proper leaders :)

Originally posted by privatehudson


And my main problem was that they portrayed the english as either:

A) Evil
B) Stupid
C) Useless
D) Traitors
E) Murderers
F) All of the above

England and the English became the typical hollywood bad guy when in reality we were not the only ones doing the invading and pillaging...


Indeed, that is something you're right to have a problem with. I, however, would have more of a problem with The Patriot, which is simply a lying piece of (almost racist) anti-English propaganda.


Originally posted by privatehudson



And Banockburn was under a moron of a King with no idea how to fight wars or run a country, under anyone of our kings with a small amount of sense, the battle would never have been fought. We proved our mettle under proper leaders :)

Possibly, but I would point out three things:

1) Edward I was an exceptional military leader
2) Edward II had good, experienced commanders
3) Bannockburn was one of many large-scale deteats of old-style cavalry-reliant forces by well-trained pikemen in the period. Bannockburn was paralled by Groeningheveld (1303), n which Flemish rebels defeated the king of France; and by Morgarten (1315) in which the rebels of Schwyz defeated the Austrian Duke

Edward I wasn't there though, Edward II was, and though he had some experienced commanders, he had a greater tendency to listen to his favourites than he did those who knew anything about war. Though banockburn was a good victory, it simply should not have been fought, and probably would not have been fought by his father.

BTW I still contend that Wellington was better than any of your tartan army generals ;)

(even if he was Irish, but that's a technicality) :lol:

Originally posted by privatehudson
Edward I wasn't there though,


Of course he wasn't...he was dead. My point was that if Bannockburn looks odd in the context, part of the reason was the exceptional ability of Edward on previous occassions.

Originally posted by privatehudson

BTW I still contend that Wellington was better than any of your tartan army generals ;)

(even if he was Irish, but that's a technicality) :lol:

Wellington was a great general indeed, there's absolutely no denying it. (He was brought on by General Abercromby - a Scot :) )I can't think of any Scottish general who occupied such a grand stage, except the infamous Anglo-Scot, Douglas Haig.

You just can't stop it can you calgacus? Scotland was not the poorest country in Europe. We were, damn it!! :lol:

Great that you mention Braveheart and the period, cause I have a question to both of you. The film is a piece of historic crap of course, where the scots seem a bunch of quasi pre-historic barbarians, IIRC the french princess was about 7 years at the time, and the most obvious to me, shouldn't there be a bridge somewhere in the main battle of the film?

Anyway, in the film, and according to what calgacus is saying, the scottish victories go on pair with those of the flemmish and swiss in the sense that an army of people on foot defeated the enemy cavalry. That's what I though too. However, the other day I picked a book in a bookstore about the decline of cavalry in the middle ages, and it said at some point that regarding the 100 years war and the role of the bowmen, the french nobility could have paid more atention to the early signs of the power of the welsh/english bow. And in particular it said that the bowmen had caused the defeat of the scottish cavalry in battles of that period. And in some other paragraph it mentioned again the scottish heavy cavalry vs. the english army where bowmen were the decisive force. So, what's the real story?

Have the last couple of pages been on topic? Where are the leaders/warriors/heros?

The distinction between great power and super power was an interesting one, however. Wouldn't Victorian Britain been a superpower? Or Germany in Mid WW2? Or the Moslems after their conquests, or the Romans in their time. Or China except in the period of European dominance (Opium wars to roughtly WW2.) What makes a superpower? Can't be just tanks, cause the British had them first in WW1 thanks in part to Winston Churchill.

Is it size, or capability of the army or bloodymindedness in action that makes a superpower of a great power? Or the absence of equal oppornents?

Originally posted by MCdread

Anyway, in the film, and according to what calgacus is saying, the scottish victories go on pair with those of the flemmish and swiss in the sense that an army of people on foot defeated the enemy cavalry. That's what I though too. However, the other day I picked a book in a bookstore about the decline of cavalry in the middle ages, and it said at some point that regarding the 100 years war and the role of the bowmen, the french nobility could have paid more atention to the early signs of the power of the welsh/english bow. And in particular it said that the bowmen had caused the defeat of the scottish cavalry in battles of that period. And in some other paragraph it mentioned again the scottish heavy cavalry vs. the english army where bowmen were the decisive force. So, what's the real story?

At Falkirk, the Edward used the longbowmen to open up the Scottish schiltrom (pikeman phalanx), but it was the Heavy Cavalry that did the job. The Scottish cavalry were not important in either the Scottish victories or the defeats of that period.

Definately Hannibal of Carthage his exploits in the punic wars wre unbelivable. he was the first recorded user of the pincher technique and it is so successful that it was used in the Gulf War (1).

the pincher/Pincer tenique is the oldest trick in the book- utilezed to great effect by Alexander the agreat- centuries before hannibal was born ;)

Napoleon, who else. A period in history and a type of warfare named after him.

Even though he was not the best general of his era by a long shot :)

Originally posted by privatehudson
Even though he was not the best general of his era by a long shot :)



He was not the best general, but to say he was not the best general by a long shot is a bit too much IMO.

Master Zhuge Liang (Kongming) gets my vote. Never have I heard of more strategic genius in anyone else. Its unfortunate that like Alexander, he died in his prime.

Tav: Not really, he was bested by Wellington who was superior to him, Charles defeated him easily at Aspern Essling and forced him into battering ram tactics at Wagram, Kutuzov and co. stopped his invasion of Russia and forced him into battering ram tactics at Borodino, then anhialated his army following the battle, Swarzenberg defeated him at Leipzig, he had no idea what to do with Spain and so on. Frankly in his latter career, with the exception of the France 1814 campaign, he was no better than average. It's only his early career that showed his brilliance.

After 1805 frankly he was poor on the field of battle, I'd rate him not much better than Charles and certainly no better than Wellington. Davout won him the 1806 Prussian campaign, exceding all expectation, and surpassing Napoleon's efforts. Davout was probably at least as equal, and took more care of his men, Lannes was also a capable general and half of the reason Aspern Essling wasn't a massacre was his work.

It's easy to forget such failings though when the likes of Austerlitz and Maregano come easier to mind, the fact was though he spent the better part of nearly a decade performing mostly woefully and carelessly in battles and not always that sensibly in his strategies either. He may well have won many of the battles he commanded in during that period, but the genius showed up to 1805 only very rarely showed itself.

It smacks too much of the allies finally getting wise to his tactics, especially Wellington and Napoleon's ability to manouver on the field of battle dipped sharply.