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

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 ;)
 
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom