Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Vicomte13
I assure you, I am sadly familiar with the martial histories of the various Celtic peoples of the world.

However in a way they show why I believe your requirement for "victory" is an incorrect vision of "Military Greatness". You seem to dismiss the fact that a defeat can be as useful to a nation, or a culture, as a victory is, maybe even more so.

Even if we stick to pure military actions and considerations some of the Greatest moments in military history were defeats.

Leoniads at Thermopaleae, to the Alamo, to the Battle of the bulge, initial defeat allows final victory.

Victory of WAR is all that counts, you can win all of the battles and still lose the WAR. Or you can win all your WARs and still lose.

(The term "Pyrrhic victory is based on the very real history of the very real King Pyrrhus of Epirus, after all.)
691 posted on 12/22/2005 5:42:33 PM PST by porkchops 4 mahound ("Si vis pacem, para bellum", If you wish peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies ]


To: porkchops 4 mahound

"However in a way they show why I believe your requirement for 'victory' is an incorrect vision of 'Military Greatness'."

I apply a very objective standard, related to the profession of arms. Like athletics, or perhaps law. By my estimation, the greatest lawyer - which is not synonymous at all with the best or most moral human being in the practice of law! - is the one who wins all his cases.

I can't pick generals, but I certainly can pick lawyers to advocate my case. And I would say that the best lawyer, from the perspective of who to pick, is the one who always wins. Now, likewise, a King can pick his generals. If I were a King back in the age of Alexander, for example, I'd pick Alexander, because he never lost. If I were King in the age of the Sun King, I'd pick Marlboroug. King in the age of Napoleon, I'd put Nelson in command of my fleets over all others. If I'm assigning military duties, I am going to pick the man that never loses, because, in strictly military terms, he is the best because I know he will win.

Moving to the modern age, if it's World War II and we get to pick generals and admirals off the bench, like sizing up teams, my first pick is going to be Guderian. If nobody's gotten him first, my second pick is going to be Nimitz (because once I have the most effective general, it's more important to also have the greatest admiral before I pick up another general). My third pick will be Von Manstein. My fourth pick, Eisenhower. My fifth, Yamamoto. Then Kutusov.

If it's the US Civil War, my first choice was the first choice of BOTH sides: Robert E. Lee (he was Chief of the US Army before stepping down to go with his native Virginia.

It's a fun mental game.


696 posted on 12/22/2005 6:43:09 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson