12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

We seem to only be talking about generals who won famous land battles.



Yi-Sun-sin.





The more you read about this guy the more amazing his story becomes.

Japan never stood a chance against this Korean admiral/general, he took out a lot of huge fleets. Plus he used the Turtle Ships very well.

[Costin_Razvan]

We are talking of heads of states who also where very good generals.

[KnightofPhoenix]

But hey, I am glad you like Mu'awiyah Costin! It's sad that not many Muslims see him as the genius that he is, only because he fought against my great, great, great, great grandfather Ali (who I admit was politically incompetent, even if he was the better Muslim).

However, I think you'd really like Abd Al Rahman Al Dakhil, nicknamed Saqr Quraysh / The Falcon of Quraysh. I think his political career mirrored Prophet Muhammad's in many ways, in the sense of dealing with Arab tribalist ignorance and establishing a state out of virtually nothing. And he was good militarily as well.

He is an Ummayyad (same clan as Muawiyah and Abd Al Malik), so he inherited their cunning.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
And all this by a man born an illiterate merchant's son. 

Some people just got vision.

Indeed.
He made the Arabs a real people with presence. And he brought back the glory of Semitic civilization after it had been subsumed after the collapse of Neo-Babylon, nearly a thousand years before him.   

You don't have to believe in his prophethood, to admire the man imo.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Indeed.
He made the Arabs a real people with presence. And he brought back the glory of Semitic civilization after it had been subsumed after the collapse of Neo-Babylon, nearly a thousand years before him.   

You don't have to believe in his prophethood, to admire the man imo.

I agree there on all counts. There are many religous figures I do not believe in, but admire for one reason or another.

In fact, it is the religions and religous figures in history who fascinate me far more than the secular kings/emporers/generals. Because their legacy, as I stated, transcends time and civilizations. Political systems rise and fall, governments succeed and fail, and most people would not know the name of the founder of their current nation. But religion transcends all these boundaries, and the people who inspired such permanent legacies are the ones that stand out to me the most. because there was something more to them than just a clever mind and charisma.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I agree there on all counts. There are many religous figures I do not believe in, but admire for one reason or another.

In fact, it is the religions and religous figures in history who fascinate me far more than the secular kings/emporers/generals. Because their legacy, as I stated, transcends time and civilizations. Political systems rise and fall, governments succeed and fail, and most people would not know the name of the founder of their current nation. But religion transcends all these boundaries, and the people who inspired such permanent legacies are the ones that stand out to me the most. because there was something more to them than just a clever mind and charisma.

I agree. The greatest empires are those found in the minds of humans.
Hopefully, we will make something out of ourselves in the future and prove that we were worthy of having a man like him from within our ranks. Because right now, we are pathetic and I hate it.

But I should probably emphasize, warfare was far from being what his "career" was about. It's an important element, but it was not all or most of it. He radically changed everything about the Arabs, in all domains. 
Just so that people don't believe that he's warlord or something. I think that would be missing 3/4 of the picture.

But it's a common mistake to make when dealing with the man. Many people focus on one side or two only, and forget about the rest. You really need to study and udnerstand all the aspects of his career (religious, social, political and military), plus the context of his time, to understand him (and in my case, admire him as a Prophet and leader in every sense of the word).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:37 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But it's a common mistake to make when dealing with the man. Many people focus on one side or two only, and forget about the rest. You really need to study and udnerstand all the aspects of his career (religious, social, political and military), plus the context of his time, to understand him (and in my case, admire him as a Prophet and leader in every sense of the word).

He liked cats. Good enough for me.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LOL he LOVED cats!
I read a story once that he found a cat sleeping on his robe / cloth I don't know what to call it. So he went out with his undershirt, sleeveless to pray and all the others were looking at him puzzled and asked why he is dressed like this. He told them that he didn't want to disturb the cat and wake it up lol

 And he also narrated (probably an allegory) that a woman was very pious and believing and she did everything required of her, but she once was cruel to a cat and she was going to be punished by God for it. Alternatively, a prostitute once was kind to a dog and gave it water, so God forgave her for everything. So I'd almost say he was an animal's right activist.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:16 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LOL he LOVED cats!
I read a story once that he found a cat sleeping on his robe / cloth I don't know what to call it. So he went out with his undershirt, sleeveless to pray and all the others were looking at him puzzled and asked why he is dressed like this. He told them that he didn't want to disturb the cat and wake it up lol

 And he also narrated (probably a metaphor) that a woman was very pious and believing and she did everything required of her, but she once was cruel to a cat and she was going to be punished by God for it. Alternatively, a prostitute once was kind to a dog and gave it water, so God forgave her for everything. So I'd almost say he was an animal's right activist.

Yes, that was the story I also heard. I forget the cat's name too, but I remember that story. It was one of my alltime favorites of religous tales/parables/accounts.

You're probably right on the animal activist front. It's a shame that legacy didn't stick here in Andalucia, where animal cruelty is a pasttime because the locals are now all inbred cave dwelling unwashed heathens who don't think animals have feelings or souls. <_<

[Joy Divison]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Obviously Hannibal scores a lot of points for defeating the might of the Roman army with such irregular troops as he had. That said I would probably want Sun Tzu.

If he were an actual person, then yeah sure.  But some scholars think he is an amalgamation of Chinese military theory.  I'll stick with Barca!

Nobody's mentioned Phillip of Macedon.  Alexander was quite fortunate to have a political-military genius for a father.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Skadi
Yea I forgot the name of the cat.

Also once, when making the pilgrimage to Mecca, he found a female dog which recently gave birth to puppies and she was laying under the shades of a tree. When Prophet Muhammad saw this, he feared that the men accompanying him would want to lie down under the same tree and disturb the dog mommy. So he actually assigned a guard to protect the dog and her puppies and make sure no one disturbs them lol awwww.

There was also an instance where he was angry at kids who were playing with bird eggs. And an instance where he consoled a kid friend of his (they used to crack jokes a lot with each other apparently) whose pet died.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:23 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...
Nobody's mentioned Phillip of Macedon.  Alexander was quite fortunate to have a political-military genius for a father.

Oh definately and IMO, I think he was more worthy of the title "The Great".

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:24 .

[Joy Divison]

Addai67 wrote...

I find it hard to admire anyone, no matter how gifted or successful, who applies his gifts to territorial expansion far beyond the actual need of sustenance. But I don't much like colonialists in any form. Damn Orlesians! (on topic LOL)

Unfortunately ever since ****** sapiens figured out how to cease being the regular main course for large felines, that has been our M.O. until about 100 years or so ago when it became unfashionable by people from countries interested in maintaing the territorial status quo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I find it hard to admire anyone, no matter how gifted or successful, who applies his gifts to territorial expansion far beyond the actual need of sustenance. But I don't much like colonialists in any form. Damn Orlesians! (on topic LOL)

Unfortunately ever since ****** sapiens figured out how to cease being the regular main course for large felines, that has been our M.O. until about 100 years or so ago when it became unfashionable by people from countries interested in maintaing the territorial status quo.

Other means were developped. Like economic hegemony.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I find it hard to admire anyone, no matter how gifted or successful, who applies his gifts to territorial expansion far beyond the actual need of sustenance. But I don't much like colonialists in any form. Damn Orlesians! (on topic LOL)

Unfortunately ever since ****** sapiens figured out how to cease being the regular main course for large felines, that has been our M.O. until about 100 years or so ago when it became unfashionable by people from countries interested in maintaing the territorial status quo.

Other means were developped. Like economic hegemony.

Yep. Conquests can succeed as good, if not better, through economic and cultiral dominion than can ever be gained by marching armies in.

Economics and religion are the currently accepted methods of conquest, armies having gone out of fashion. Well, usually. <_<

[KnightofPhoenix]

Initially, economic dominion was enforced by the sword or more accurately, by gunboats. But yea, now it became such a powerful policy tool that it can work almost completely independently from military power (though it would help).

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Initially, economic dominion was enforced by the sword or more accurately, by gunboats. But yea, now it became such a powerful policy tool that it can work almost completely independently from military power (though it would help).

It certainly does. The whole "speak softly but carry a big stick" philosophy.

Military power helps, but in some cases, is almost absent (i.e. Japan). I think the economic and cultural domination is the next step in the evolution of warfare, though actual military action will never die out. And then you have technological warefare as well.

War, like alot of things, evolves.

[Joy Divison]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Initially, economic dominion was enforced by the sword or more accurately, by gunboats. But yea, now it became such a powerful policy tool that it can work almost completely independently from military power (though it would help).

It certainly does. The whole "speak softly but carry a big stick" philosophy.

Military power helps, but in some cases, is almost absent (i.e. Japan). I think the economic and cultural domination is the next step in the evolution of warfare, though actual military action will never die out. And then you have technological warefare as well.

War, like alot of things, evolves.

I think culture and economics have always mattered, it's just more obvious now.  Rome sustained its conquests because it turned its subjects into Romans.  Contrast that to the Mongols who conquered but eventually went native.  Conquerors, however great, have seen their gains fleeting if they did not recognize the importance of politics and culture to sustain their territorial gains.

[Addai]

Joy Divison wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I find it hard to admire anyone, no matter how gifted or successful, who applies his gifts to territorial expansion far beyond the actual need of sustenance. But I don't much like colonialists in any form. Damn Orlesians! (on topic LOL)

Unfortunately ever since ****** sapiens figured out how to cease being the regular main course for large felines, that has been our M.O. until about 100 years or so ago when it became unfashionable by people from countries interested in maintaing the territorial status quo.

That's not true.  Different cultures and different individuals have been more or less ambitious in their activities.  Survival is not what I'm talking about.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Couldn't vs woudn't. If they could have done what others did, they would have. The only examples I can think of accepting a basic level of sustenance are primitive societies (because they can't do otherwise),until they eventually end up expanding (when they can). And it's when they do, that they develop. And thus, the circle of human evolution and development.

Even if they aren't motivated by ambition. The sheer migrations of human populations that we know about (something like the indo-europeans), fluctuation of demographics and the scarcity of resources, means that a clash is inevitable. And during the clash, empires were formed.

Imperialism is not necessarily a purely offensive desire. When Rome became an Empire, it was in the context of a war with Carthage and it was perceived necessary to ensure its security.

And at the end of the day, it's really those empires that contributed the most to human advancement.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 04:17 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Couldn't vs woudn't. If they could have done what others did, they would have. The only examples I can think of accepting a basic level of sustenance are primitive societies (because they can't do otherwise),until they eventually end up expanding (when they can). And it's when they do, that they develop. And thus, the circle of human evolution and development.

Even if they aren't motivated by ambition. The sheer migrations of human populations that we know about (something like the indo-europeans), fluctuation of demographics and the scarcity of resources, means that a clash is inevitable. And during the clash, empires were formed.

Imperialism is not necessarily a purely offensive desire. When Rome became an Empire, it was in the context of a war with Carthage and it was perceived necessary to ensure its security.

I'm not a pacifist- I accept that there are times in history when there's no choice for people but to expand into new territory, and they always have a right to defend themselves.  I'm talking about the people who take what isn't theirs because they consider themselves superior in some way.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
I'm not a pacifist- I accept that there are times in history when there's no choice for people but to expand into new territory, and they always have a right to defend themselves.  I'm talking about the people who take what isn't theirs because they consider themselves superior in some way.

Eh, the sad reality is that "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

If thsoe who take what's not theirs prove capable of maintaining themselves, being more productive, more united, better organized and better at defending themselves, then they earned it.

Really, what people now can argue that what they have is *theirs* and why? Artificial borders? Because they were before? Well who were before them (and there is always someone before)? Is it inscribed someplace that it's theirs?
 
For me, what someone earns becomes his by default, in a context of absence of rule of Law that marked international relations (till this day).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 04:31 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I'm not a pacifist- I accept that there are times in history when there's no choice for people but to expand into new territory, and they always have a right to defend themselves.  I'm talking about the people who take what isn't theirs because they consider themselves superior in some way.

Eh, the sad reality is that "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

If thsoe who take what's not theirs prove capable of maintaining themselves, being more productive, more united, better organized and better at defending themselves, then they earned it.

So if someone breaks into your house and the only ones home are those not able to defend themselves, all that's in it including the people are rightfully the intruder's?  Bull****.

Anyway, we should stop this discussion or the thread will get locked.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
So if someone breaks into your house and the only ones home are those not able to defend themselves, all that's in it including the people are rightfully the intruder's?  Bull****.

Anyway, we should stop this discussion or the thread will get locked.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
For me, what someone earns becomes his by default, in a context of absence of rule of Law that marked international relations (till this day).

When / if the world becomes a society governed by Rule of Law, then you can use that argument.

In a context of a society marked by the Rule of Law (or rule of norms), the behaviour you described is unnacceptable, simply because you cannot have a functioning society that way.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 04:36 .

[Joy Divison]

Addai67 wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I find it hard to admire anyone, no matter how gifted or successful, who applies his gifts to territorial expansion far beyond the actual need of sustenance. But I don't much like colonialists in any form. Damn Orlesians! (on topic LOL)

Unfortunately ever since ****** sapiens figured out how to cease being the regular main course for large felines, that has been our M.O. until about 100 years or so ago when it became unfashionable by people from countries interested in maintaing the territorial status quo.

That's not true.  Different cultures and different individuals have been more or less ambitious in their activities.  Survival is not what I'm talking about.

Hmm...individials perhaps but I can't think of any cultures off the top of my head.  Even going back way way way back in our history, what has been euphemistically called "migration" is blatent imperialism by another name.  Whether Bantus in Africa, Indo-Europeans in Eurasia, or the Sino-Tibetan speakers in East Asia were all rather adept at expanding their liguistic and cultural influence at the expense of others.  To say nothing of our wiping out the Neanderthals 35,000 years ago.