310 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

Are you going to deny that Rommel was a skilled strategist and tactician?

 

No, i will however claim the man to be a poor author and extremely overhyped.

[TheJediSaint]

Are you going to deny that Rommel was a skilled strategist and tactician? Because in that case you would be one of the only ones to do so. I am not saying Rommel was one of the most skilled in history either though. WW2 was actually lacking a whole lot in the field of brilliant strategists and tacticians (WW1 even more so).

Brilliant strategists by definition are rare.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Truly skilled generals have gone the way of the do do bird since technology has gotten deadlier strategy becomes less important.

Exactly. The reliance on the machine to do the work, has made generals lax.

[EmperorSahlertz]

No, i will however claim the man to be a poor author and extremely overhyped.

Just because he is hyped, does not mean his accomplishments weren't impressive. While I agree that he does take much of the stagelight from other German generals, I beleive that it is mostly because he was by far the msot agreable of the generals to our modern western standards, and because what he accomplished WAS incredible, leading to even more hype.

[TheJediSaint]

Exactly. The reliance on the machine to do the work, has made generals lax.

Ancient armies weren't exactly teeming with top-notch generals either.  

[Master Warder Z_]

Exactly. The reliance on the machine to do the work, has made generals lax.

 

Grand Admiral Lutjens was about the last one worthy of the title.

 

.-. Raeder wasn't bad but what can you do with a navy made up near entirely of light destroyers and submarines.

[WarriorOfLight999]

This forum wont let me reply directly. Blegh.

 

Grey Wardens wound definitely be disadvantaged by numbers and the gaatlok, but remember that Grey Wardens are used to being outnumbered!

 

It only took 3 to end a civil war and a Blight, and another 6 to clean up the Thaw and the Architect/Mother! That's not counting the 2 dozen that died in Ostagar, or the Orlesian Grey Wardens (I think there were 12 that came in?). So really, not too shabby, XD

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ancient armies weren't exactly teeming with top-notch generals either.  

Nope. They were actually more often than not lead by complete morons, imbeciles and even madmen.

[Master Warder Z_]

and because what he accomplished WAS incredible, leading to even more hype.

 

Model accomplished the last great Wehrmacht victory and yet he is forgotten and left to rust in history.

 

Maybe because he killed thirty thousand plus american soldiers in combat, i am unsure.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Grand Admiral Lutjens was about the last one worthy of the title.

 

.-. Raeder wasn't bad but what can you do with a navy made up near entirely of light destroyers and submarines.

Admirals do still shine from time to time. I think that is mostly because the name of the game hasn't changed much. Naval warfare has ALWAYS relied mostly on technology. So I am often willing to give admirals a bit more leeway than generals, and WW2 did "feature" some truly skillful admirals on both sides.

[Aimi]

._.
 
The arrangement of the gun emplacements, towed rifles, artillery and armored units in Hurtgen was a masterpiece!
 
The killzones set up from all accounts were immensely effective and given he is the man who gave the US the biggest bloody nose of the war, i'd believe the historical accounts.

 
Is there any point in trying to determine "military skill" - a comically subjective quality - independent of military outcomes?

Sports watchers when developing things like WAR, DVOA, and PER at least have the excuse of attempting to predict future outcomes (for betting purposes and suchlike things): ceteris paribus, teams and players with more skill should perform better than their opponents, on average. What purpose could be served by arguing over whether which of two dead German WWII generals had superior 'skill'? There's no future predictive value. There's no semblance of objectivity. There isn't even an adjustment for the 'skill' of the opponent (unlike the aforementioned DVOA stat), whatever that skill might be.

And when the subject is a fantasy realm created by video game developers rather than historical trends in war (or sports), predictive value goes out the window entirely.

So I stand by that label of 'dick-measuring'.
 

WW2 was actually lacking a whole lot in the field of brilliant strategists and tacticians (WW1 even more so).

aaaagh what does this even mean

According to you, unlike literally every other field of human endeavor, from literature to engineering to scientific inquiry, practitioners of war have gotten less, not more, skilled at doing it over time. The advent of comprehensive military schooling and professionalization; the development of strategy, operational art, and tactics as widely studied and deeply considered areas of thought; the constantly growing field of historical examples for modern generals to draw on and use as context...these things have resulted in not more, but fewer "brilliant" war leaders.

How does that make any sense at all.

Model accomplished the last great Wehrmacht victory and yet he is forgotten and left to rust in history.
 
Maybe because he killed thirty thousand plus american soldiers in combat, i am unsure.

What, all by himself? Wouldn't he have gotten tired?

[lordsaren101]

Ancient armies weren't exactly teeming with top-notch generals either.

False. Look at Megas Alexandros, Hannibal, Caesar, Germanicus, Trajan, Hadrian, Belisarius, Arrianus i could continue.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Model accomplished the last great Wehrmacht victory and yet he is forgotten and left to rust in history.

 

Maybe because he killed thirty thousand plus american soldiers in combat, i am unsure.

Rommel was dead by the conclusion of the Battle of Hurtgen Forest. And just because it was the last, does not mean it was the greatest.  Also, Rommel killed many more than 30.000 Allied troops.

[TheJediSaint]

Strategy is overrated anyway.  It's logistics that wins wars.

 

But in regards to Thedas, I still think the Grey Wardens make the best warriors as an aggregate, especially those who are close to their Calling.

[lordsaren101]

Rommel was good! But others were better.

[HiroVoid]

Golems make the best warriors.

[lordsaren101]

Rommel was good! But others were better.

Erich Von Manstein. Albrecht Kesselring even Joachim Peiper even though not a general was quite creative in the field.

[EmperorSahlertz]

aaaagh what does this even mean

According to you, unlike literally every other field of human endeavor, from literature to engineering to scientific inquiry, practitioners of war have gotten less, not more, skilled at doing it over time. The advent of comprehensive military schooling and professionalization; the development of strategy, operational art, and tactics as widely studied and deeply considered areas of thought; the constantly growing field of historical examples for modern generals to draw on and use as context...these things have resulted in not more, but fewer "brilliant" war leaders.

How does that make any sense at all.

It means that commanders had barely even adjsuted to the great technological strides that had been made since WW1, and as thus had not adapted new strategies, and isntead relied more on the technology to do the work, than devicing new stratagems. I didn't say that warfare itself had become "less skillful". I said that the commanders of WW1 and WW2 weren't particularly adaptive and doesn't rank high on the list of brilliant commanders in the history of warfare. They don't rank low either mind you.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Strategy is overrated anyway.  It's logistics that wins wars.

 

But in regards to Thedas, I still think the Grey Wardens make the best warriors as an aggregate, especially those who are close to their Calling.

Logistics is a part of strategy.. But you are correct. If the infrastructure cannot support the war effort, the war effort will crumble.

[TheJediSaint]

False. Look at Megas Alexandros, Hannibal, Caesar, Germanicus, Trajan, Hadrian, Belisarius, Arrianus i could continue.

And for ever one of them there's a Crassus or a Varus, and a thousands of mediocre commanders.

 

Isn't it rather telling how Hannibal was the ONLY Carthaginian general to win battles against the Romans during the Second Punic War?

[Aimi]

It means that commanders had barely even adjsuted to the great technological strides that had been made since WW1, and as thus had not adapted new strategies, and isntead relied more on the technology to do the work, than devicing new stratagems. I didn't say that warfare itself had become "less skillful". I said that the commanders of WW1 and WW2 weren't particularly adaptive and doesn't rank high on the list of brilliant commanders in the history of warfare. They don't rank low either mind you.

That is:

1. an assertion about the generalship in the World Wars that is...not exactly an agreed-upon consensus opinion of military historians (to put it lightly)
2. insufficiently attentive to the overall skill pool and level of the leaders in previous wars around the globe
3. a fairly idiosyncratic definition of "brilliant"
4. demonstrative of the continuing bizarre nature of this conversation in that you think that "rankings" in this context apparently mean something, and especially that your rankings mean something to people other than you

[lordsaren101]

And for ever one of them there's a Crassus or a Varus, and a thousands of mediocre commanders.
 
Isn't it rather telling how Hannibal was the ONLY Carthaginian general to win battles against the Romans during the Second Punic War?

Its just like real life, most people are unexceptional. Part of the carthaginian problem was they were an army made primarily of mercenaries. Hannibal didnt do to well against Scipio Africanus though did he

[leaguer of one]

This forum wont let me reply directly. Blegh.

 

Grey Wardens wound definitely be disadvantaged by numbers and the gaatlok, but remember that Grey Wardens are used to being outnumbered!

 

It only took 3 to end a civil war and a Blight, and another 6 to clean up the Thaw and the Architect/Mother! That's not counting the 2 dozen that died in Ostagar, or the Orlesian Grey Wardens (I think there were 12 that came in?). So really, not too shabby, XD

They are used to being out numbered by mindless enemies. 

[lordsaren101]

That is:1. an assertion about the generalship in the World Wars that is...not exactly an agreed-upon consensus opinion of military historians (to put it lightly)2. insufficiently attentive to the overall skill pool and level of the leaders in previous wars around the globe3. a fairly idiosyncratic definition of "brilliant"4. demonstrative of the continuing bizarre nature of this conversation in that you think that "rankings" in this context apparently mean something, and especially that your rankings mean something to people other than you

Not a fan of this coversation i take it?

[EmperorSahlertz]

That is:

1. an assertion about the generalship in the World Wars that is...not exactly an agreed-upon consensus opinion of military historians (to put it lightly)
2. insufficiently attentive to the overall skill pool and level of the leaders in previous wars around the globe
3. a fairly idiosyncratic definition of "brilliant"
4. demonstrative of the continuing bizarre nature of this conversation in that you think that "rankings" in this context apparently mean something, and especially that your rankings mean something to people other than you

You really are new to the internet aren't you? I hoenstly cannot be bothered with explaining to you the purpose of discussion. Have fun in the widlerness of the internet though.