Was Spartacus really a great commander? [Archive]

Nowake

12-02-2003, 09:44

Quote[/b] (Scipio @ Nov. 30 2003,03:45)]Hah well said Red Peasant coarse if the almighty Scipio had been around at that time Sparticus would have never made a name for himself
Hmm, if any of the contemporan true military commanders would have been around, Spartacus would've been trashed. Think of Pompeius, Lucullus, Caesar etc.

But this is not the issue, as the revolt was started in that particular moment because Spartacus knew that none of them would interviene untill to late. Because his original plan was to get out of Italy with huge slave masses as soon as possible, and starting from that core, to form a coalition against Rome and crush it.

Michael the Great

12-29-2003, 12:07

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Dec. 02 2003,02:44)]
Quote[/b] (Scipio @ Nov. 30 2003,03:45)]Hah well said Red Peasant coarse if the almighty Scipio had been around at that time Sparticus would have never made a name for himself
Hmm, if any of the contemporan true military commanders would have been around, Spartacus would've been trashed. Think of Pompeius, Lucullus, Caesar etc.

But this is not the issue, as the revolt was started in that particular moment because Spartacus knew that none of them would interviene untill to late. Because his original plan was to get out of Italy with huge slave masses as soon as possible, and starting from that core, to form a coalition against Rome and crush it.
Neah don't think he would of been trashed,depends on the army he was confronting...problem is that he would still be eventualy get defeated coz it was impossible to conquer Rome with an army of gladiators.

Ashen

12-29-2003, 14:25

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Dec. 02 2003,00:33)]Well, IMHO, P. Scipio Africanus was a military genius, and as Liddel-Hart (better than Napoleon) agrees with me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I have to say he must have been. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Napoleon was a poor general in truth, Much like many of romes lesser political generals. He had the zeal and superior training and equipment of france behind him. Every time he got into a major battle with Wellington that required smarts, wellington handed his ass to him.

I think that about sums up napoleon. Too reliant on his men and not a good enough tactician. He certainly wouldn't have lost half the battles he did if he had been one of the "greats".

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 16:54

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ Dec. 29 2003,07:25)]Napoleon was a poor general in truth, Much like many of romes lesser political generals. He had the zeal and superior training and equipment of france behind him. Every time he got into a major battle with Wellington that required smarts, wellington handed his ass to him.

I think that about sums up napoleon. Too reliant on his men and not a good enough tactician. He certainly wouldn't have lost half the battles he did if he had been one of the "greats".
Oh, I see… Good to know that…

Actually, I was wondering if the man who had an IQ greater than of Leonardo Da Vinci and who, after the "Brunler Scale", is being regarded a genius by any definition of the word, a person who actually had the ability to write simultaneously two different letters addressed to different persons and dealing with different subjects, using both hands in a process, a man that conquered a greater deal of Europe and Russia and for whose ultimate defeat the greatest of Europe had to ally themselves, now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 16:57

But, as for the topic itself, Spartacus defeated around nine different Roman armies that went after him, if I remember correctly, and I believe that qualifies him as "a great general"…

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-29-2003, 19:27

Quote[/b] ]Oh, I see… Good to know that…

Actually, I was wondering if the man who had an IQ greater than of Leonardo Da Vinci and who, after the "Brunler Scale", is being regarded a genius by any definition of the word, a person who actually had the ability to write simultaneously two different letters addressed to different persons and dealing with different subjects, using both hands in a process, a man that conquered a greater deal of Europe and Russia and for whose ultimate defeat the greatest of Europe had to ally themselves, now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Beautifull sarcasm... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 20:11

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 29 2003,12:27)]
Quote[/b] ]Oh, I see… Good to know that…

Actually, I was wondering if the man who had an IQ greater than of Leonardo Da Vinci and who, after the "Brunler Scale", is being regarded a genius by any definition of the word, a person who actually had the ability to write simultaneously two different letters addressed to different persons and dealing with different subjects, using both hands in a process, a man that conquered a greater deal of Europe and Russia and for whose ultimate defeat the greatest of Europe had to ally themselves, now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Beautifull sarcasm... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Sarcastic? Scarcely… It was a legitimate question… I'm always into learning something new, respectable Lord Aymar

Ironside

12-30-2003, 09:24

Citera[/b] ]a man that conquered a greater deal of Europe and Russia and for whose ultimate defeat the greatest of Europe had to ally themselves, now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?

Does that make Hitler a great general? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Citera[/b] ]a person who actually had the ability to write simultaneously two different letters addressed to different persons and dealing with different subjects, using both hands in a process

It's easy, first you weaken your connection between your two brainhalves, then prevent you from seeing any letter with both eyes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Citera[/b] ]Actually, I was wondering if the man who had an IQ greater than of Leonardo Da Vinci and who, after the "Brunler Scale", is being regarded a genius by any definition of the word

So according to the Brunler Scale you're a genius if you attack Russia with the winter soon coming by and with no counter to the old Russian burn the earth tactics.

This makes Hitler a genius... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Citera[/b] ]now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?

A man that repeatedly wins with inferior troops, beats other good generals, a man that uses all his forces in a good way. And finally a man that actually can control anything during a big battle. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 13:24

Quote[/b] ]Citera
a man that conquered a greater deal of Europe and Russia and for whose ultimate defeat the greatest of Europe had to ally themselves, now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?

Does that make Hitler a great general?

Citera
a person who actually had the ability to write simultaneously two different letters addressed to different persons and dealing with different subjects, using both hands in a process

It's easy, first you weaken your connection between your two brainhalves, then prevent you from seeing any letter with both eyes.

Citera
Actually, I was wondering if the man who had an IQ greater than of Leonardo Da Vinci and who, after the "Brunler Scale", is being regarded a genius by any definition of the word

So according to the Brunler Scale you're a genius if you attack Russia with the winter soon coming by and with no counter to the old Russian burn the earth tactics.

This makes Hitler a genius...

Citera
now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?

A man that repeatedly wins with inferior troops, beats other good generals, a man that uses all his forces in a good way. And finally a man that actually can control anything during a big battle.

Things are getting funny...
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Voigtkampf

12-30-2003, 15:15

Quote[/b] ]Things are getting funny...
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

Hilarious, actually..

Quote[/b] ]Does that make Hitler a great general?

If I were ever to say that, I would be burned on a stake within 60 seconds... But, that vile creature actually conquered France in something more than a month of warfare, something the old imperial Germany couldn't do in 4 1/2 years, and he invented the tactics of Blitzkrieg...

Quote[/b] ]So according to the Brunler Scale you're a genius if you attack Russia with the winter soon coming by and with no counter to the old Russian burn the earth tactics.

This makes Hitler a genius...

Actually, Napoleon had conquered Moscow and was waiting to negotiate the peace, as it was a common practice in those days, yet the Rus didn't go for it so that he simply returned to France; on his way back he got attacked again and again, and the winter took its toll...

And Hitler attacked Russia on 22.06.1941. Now, that is hardly winter, isn't it? And, as a side note, winter will always come, so after this definition every general who ever attacks is a dope, because he doesn't realizes that "the winter is coming"…

Quote[/b] ]Citera
now if he was "a poor general", who then might be called "a great general"?

A man that repeatedly wins with inferior troops, beats other good generals, a man that uses all his forces in a good way. And finally a man that actually can control anything during a big battle.

Name?
Ahh, yes, the mysterious unseen general from Sun Tzu's works, the one that wins without fighting…
You could have said so right away, but you would have robbed me some decent puns…

Thank you, NOW I finally now WHO is a great general…

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 15:52

Quote[/b] ]and he invented the tactics of Blitzkrieg...
No, he didn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

The German High Command did. You now... ...Von Runsdsted, Von Bock, Guderian, Rommel, etc...

Hitler was a non-tactician, non-strategist. His perception of these affairs was faulty to say the least.
His compreension in these matters, wasn't better than an uninformed civilian... ...fortunatelly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Red Peasant

12-30-2003, 18:54

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ Dec. 29 2003,12:25)]
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Dec. 02 2003,00:33)]Well, IMHO, P. Scipio Africanus was a military genius, and as Liddel-Hart (better than Napoleon) agrees with me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I have to say he must have been. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Napoleon was a poor general in truth, Much like many of romes lesser political generals. He had the zeal and superior training and equipment of france behind him. Every time he got into a major battle with Wellington that required smarts, wellington handed his ass to him.

I think that about sums up napoleon. Too reliant on his men and not a good enough tactician. He certainly wouldn't have lost half the battles he did if he had been one of the "greats".
Well, TBH, I never said Napoleon was a bad general (rather the opposite, I think), but that I agree with Liddell-Hart in that P. Cornelius Scipio was a greater general. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Voigtkampf

12-30-2003, 19:09

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 30 2003,08:52)]
Quote[/b] ]and he invented the tactics of Blitzkrieg...
No, he didn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

The German High Command did. You now... ...Von Runsdsted, Von Bock, Guderian, Rommel, etc...

Hitler was a non-tactician, non-strategist. His perception of these affairs was faulty to say the least.
His compreension in these matters, wasn't better than an uninformed civilian... ...fortunatelly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Respectfully, one of those rare occasions - 1 out of 10, if I remember correctly - where you don't get a candy, my dear Lord Aymar…

Actually, Hitler had an absolute memory and could tell you each and every detail about his or enemy troops, down to the incredible things like the thickness of different panzer armor or the range of various artillery pieces. He personally made the attack plans for Wehrmacht in more than one occasion; he adopted the general Manstein's plan for offensive across the Ardennes which, by the way, Rundstedt rejected. The concept of Blitzkrieg is his and his invention alone, from scratch on, all the way to mid 30's where he put an extra weight on building tanks capable of such warfare…

Ultimately, we have to thank the German HQ staff who were "old school" officers, noble to the bone and very displeased with a simple front soldier teaching them their business, so they opposed wherever they could… If not, the course of war could have go much differently…

But let us not slip away from the subject… Spartacus, not Hitler.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 20:30

I'm sorry, but you're wrong... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Quote[/b] ]Actually, Hitler had an absolute memory and could tell you each and every detail about his or enemy troops, down to the incredible things like the thickness of different panzer armor or the range of various artillery pieces.
Memory itself does not make a good general. If that would be the case, ALL elephants would be GOOD generals... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]He personally made the attack plans for Wehrmacht in more than one occasion;
Yes, whenever they would be defeated... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Quote[/b] ]he adopted the general Manstein's plan for offensive across the Ardennes which, by the way, Rundstedt rejected.
You're right. He ADOPTED it, not invented it.

Quote[/b] ]The concept of Blitzkrieg is his and his invention alone, from scratch on, all the way to mid 30's where he put an extra weight on building tanks capable of such warfare…
The concept of Blietzkrieg was sketched much earlier than Hitler's envolvement with the German Armed Forces. It's first studies date back to the end of the WWI.

Quote[/b] ]Ultimately, we have to thank the German HQ staff who were "old school" officers, noble to the bone and very displeased with a simple front soldier teaching them their business, so they opposed wherever they could… If not, the course of war could have go much differently…
Sure, sure... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Tell me one thing. So, you believe that the various strategic blunders on the Eastern Front, were the responsability of the Wermacht Generals?

No they weren't. It were Hitlker's stupid hesitations and lack of vision, to classify and chase the most important strategic objectives, provoking the enormous waste of recources and troops that eventually led to the collapse of the Eastern Front. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

We have to be gratefull for the fact he was a jerk strategical-wise... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Voigtkampf

12-31-2003, 08:44

Respected lord Aymar,

I believe you are right and absolutely agree with you.

PS Happy New Year and have fun

Ironside

12-31-2003, 11:08

Citera[/b] ]Actually, Napoleon had conquered Moscow and was waiting to negotiate the peace, as it was a common practice in those days, yet the Rus didn't go for it so that he simply returned to France; on his way back he got attacked again and again, and the winter took its toll...

And Hitler attacked Russia on 22.06.1941. Now, that is hardly winter, isn't it? And, as a side note, winter will always come, so after this definition every general who ever attacks is a dope, because he doesn't realizes that "the winter is coming"…

Even if Napoleon had gotten peace his army would still have suffered badly from starvation and cold. An army that large couldn't be supported from the surrounding land if it's burnt and from were would he get food? A Russian city if it's peace? Sure...

But Hitler stalled the invasion enough to make the winter a problem.

Citera[/b] ]Name?
Ahh, yes, the mysterious unseen general from Sun Tzu's works, the one that wins without fighting…
You could have said so right away, but you would have robbed me some decent puns…

Thank you, NOW I finally now WHO is a great general…

Well two great Swedish generals are Johan Banér and Lennart Torstensson during the 30-years war.

And what I've read about Spartacus he seems to been a great general considering that he beatened several roman armies (that was sent against him, meaning that they had a good chance of beating him), and his loss was against a much superior army of atleast 36000 legionaries.

Rosacrux

12-31-2003, 11:41

May I add my 2 eurocents to this interesting clash of the military master minds? Merci...

Napoleon
Great, great GREAT tactician and strategist, and politician too... if he wasn't an utterly unstable megalomaniac, he would actually conquer the whole of Europe for a considerable amount of time. But he wished for everything under the sun (even under the winter sun in Moscow...) and that was his demise. But his military mastermind is beyond any doubt and those who try to belittle him, frankly, know little or absolutely nothing of warfare and military history. Only one of his military achievements (the perfection of the inner lines movement) and the fact that he build a formidable army out of the rabble that was the Revolutionary Army of the Republic, rank him among the top of the tops...

Adolf Hitler
Frankly, considering he was an amateur, he faired extremely well. He conceived more than one succesful plans, picked the right (usually...) commanders to lead his army, was a decent Strategist overall, took great care and interest into the military issues... All in all, for an amateur he was very good. Germany would've lost the war even if Von Mannstein was the military mastermind instead of Hitler (actually, they'd lose even if they had a modern version of Alexander or Hannibal, the two I consider the greatest generals of all times).

Scipio Africanus was more than good.

Spartacus faired extremely well, considering that he commanded a notorious rabble (an army of ex-slaves and ex-gladiators, accompanied by hordes of whores) and fought against the greatest military machine of the antiquity. Since he didn't manage to evacuate Italy, he was doomed - even without facing the creme de la creme of the Roman Commanders.

Michael the Great

01-01-2004, 19:13

Yes,but u can't say there is for the time period that some1 had a greater IQ than DaVinci can u?

Red Peasant

01-01-2004, 19:24

Oh, I don't know, Archimedes and Euclid must be there or thereabouts for a start...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

DemonArchangel

01-01-2004, 19:25

Hitler invented Blitzkrieg, give him credit for that.
Spit on the f**k's grave anyway.

Napoleon was a great general
Mainly cuz i don't like British military forces that much.

Spartacus was just f**ked up. His long terms goals were bad.

Red Peasant

01-01-2004, 19:56

The 'Imperator of Lore' speaks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Michael the Great

01-02-2004, 00:34

Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ Jan. 01 2004,12:25)]Spartacus was just f**ked up. His long terms goals were bad.
WHAT?????
Off with his head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Michael the Great

01-03-2004, 17:34

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 01 2004,12:24)]Oh, I don't know, Archimedes and Euclid must be there or thereabouts for a start...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Da Vinci was an astronomer,phisician,mathematician,biologist,he studied optics,he even predicted modern airoplanes and helicopters 500 years ago,Euclid or Archimedes didn't.

Red Peasant

01-03-2004, 18:59

Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 03 2004,15:34)]
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 01 2004,12:24)]Oh, I don't know, Archimedes and Euclid must be there or thereabouts for a start...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Da Vinci was an astronomer,phisician,mathematician,biologist,he studied optics,he even predicted modern airoplanes and helicopters 500 years ago,Euclid or Archimedes didn't.
Oh, I don't know, those Greek guys had to build up most stuff from first principles with very few precedents. Without them Da Vinci would have been nothing: the Renaissance and most of modern notions of natural science, art, mathematics, literature, etc was built on the achievements of the ancients. Democritus even postulated a reasonable atomic theory merely from inductive reasoning without the immense scientific paraphernalia available to scientists thousands of years later. Don't get me wrong, da Vinci was a genius of the first order, but for every one of him there seems to have been several ancient natural philosophers. The scary thing is that we hardly know that much about them, whereas we know far more about da Vinci and the leading lights of early modern history. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-04-2004, 16:58

Quote[/b] ]Oh, I don't know, those Greek guys had to build up most stuff from first principles with very few precedents. Without them Da Vinci would have been nothing: the Renaissance and most of modern notions of natural science, art, mathematics, literature, etc was built on the achievements of the ancients. Democritus even postulated a reasonable atomic theory merely from inductive reasoning without the immense scientific paraphernalia available to scientists thousands of years later. Don't get me wrong, da Vinci was a genius of the first order, but for every one of him there seems to have been several ancient natural philosophers. The scary thing is that we hardly know that much about them, whereas we know far more about da Vinci and the leading lights of early modern history.
You're completelly right.

I can't recall if it was Newton or Einstein that made this sentence:

"If I could see so far away, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

The giants were evidently all of his scientific percursors. People tend to forget that ALL forms of science are evolutive and depend on previous knowledge.

Another thing:

The Roman siege of Siracuse lasted for 2 years during the 2nd Punic War (218-201BC). This was because of the defensive war machines of Arquimedes. The Romans feared their efectiveness.
If you search the net for Arquimedes or the siege of Siracuse, you will find that Arquimedes achieved far more, engineering-wise, than Leonardo Da Vinci.

Ludens

01-05-2004, 15:46

Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 03 2004,17:34)]Da Vinci was an astronomer, phisician, mathematician, biologist, he studied optics,he even predicted modern airoplanes and helicopters 500 years ago,Euclid or Archimedes didn't.
Yeah, and he also invented a tank. But these things didn't work. The helicopter he drawed required one man to turn a handle so fast that the thing would stay in the air. I would love to see someone try that.
Samen for the tank: the thing was to heavy, it couldn't be moved and would collapse under its own weight.

Ironside

01-05-2004, 21:34

Citera[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 05 2004,08:46)]
Citera[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 03 2004,17:34)]Da Vinci was an astronomer, phisician, mathematician, biologist, he studied optics,he even predicted modern airoplanes and helicopters 500 years ago,Euclid or Archimedes didn't.
Yeah, and he also invented a tank. But these things didn't work. The helicopter he drawed required one man to turn a handle so fast that the thing would stay in the air. I would love to see someone try that.
Samen for the tank: the thing was to heavy, it couldn't be moved and would collapse under its own weight.

Citera[/b] ]Yeah, and he also invented a tank. But these things didn't work. The helicopter he drawed required one man to turn a handle so fast that the thing would stay in the air. I would love to see someone try that.
Samen for the tank: the thing was to heavy, it couldn't be moved and would collapse under its own weight.

It was a problem with material during this time, and well, human muscels don't develop that much energy. The flying machine that he drew can fly if made of human materials and he drew a mortar ammo (it exploded and spread the shatters amongst the enemy, causing great damage) that is very simular of what was used during the American civil war.

Citera[/b] ]If you search the net for Arquimedes or the siege of Siracuse, you will find that Arquimedes achieved far more, engineering-wise, than Leonardo Da Vinci.

It gets a little more easier if someone is funding your projects... Who vould fund a man today who said that he could build a spaceship that is going back and forth to Alfa Centauri in a month? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

But Arquimedes did invent some nasty things during that siege. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Michael the Great

01-06-2004, 23:12

It is also believed that Da Vinci made the Shroud from Torino....but this is another story,as we have already gone off-topic from the start of this thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Ludens

01-07-2004, 13:13

Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 06 2004,23:12)]It is also believed that Da Vinci made the Shroud from Torino....but this is another story,as we have already gone off-topic from the start of this thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
The shroud of Turin first appearance in history is in 1389, when the bishop of Lirey complains about this relic by letter. He writes he spoken to the maker ( ) of this shroud. (The shroud was presented to the public at 1357). I believe this is somewhat before Leonardo da Vinci, but I am unclear as to what his birthday is.

Michael the Great

01-07-2004, 18:12

There were more than 1 shrouds,and Da Vinci was asked by an influental family in Italy to make one,and his shroud remained till this day.
And about Spartacus,I believe that he was a better general than many famous roman commanders,but who could of done more with an army of slaves??(He did incredibly well with what he had at his disposal...)

Ludens

01-07-2004, 18:59

The next battle at Time Commanders will be Crassus versus Spartacus. The .com updated their TC-page with this, but they removed it after 12 hours or so.

Michael the Great

01-10-2004, 13:39

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 07 2004,11:59)]The .com updated their TC-page with this, but they removed it after 12 hours or so.
Hmmm...wonder why they did that?

Ludens

01-10-2004, 19:49

Because the show wasn't on TV on 5 januari. It wasn't on TV on 8 januari either. Next week: still nothing.

Blast, what is happening? Have they cancelled the last two episodes?

Duke of York

01-12-2004, 12:44

just on Adolf Hitler...i believe i have insuffeint knowlegde on the general Spacticus to make a comment, but im certain that Hitler wasnt a great tactician. He was a great motivational speaker much to everyones despair as he whipped Germany up into a frenzy in which millions were killed, anyway... take Stanlingrad fot instance. Basically he got too arrogant didnt look at the numbers, didnt listne to his generals and incidnetally fired some of em which resulted in the loss of the 6th army..

all he did was say Group A and Group B, you march on the oil fields, and you march on Stanlingrad.. and didnt give a hoot about supply and logistics even when his generals pointed out that it wasnt a wise tactic.. in my books to be considered a great general, not only do you have to devise good tactics but supply and support your armies..as napeoleon siad an army marchers on its stomach. anyway...enough of my rambling..thats what i think..anyone who has an opinion id be glad to here. or if ive been typing utter nonsense...

cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

71-hour Ahmed

01-12-2004, 16:56

I've already stated my opinion of Spartacus, we lack data but he seemed from what we have to be good.

On Hitler:
The oilfields probably were the key target after Moscow and possibly Leningrad, as they would have freed Germany from its fuel problems. So going after them wasn't a bad idea: the logistics should have been OK if the Germany army was properly equipped and the right approach (i.e. not killing them) taken to the occupied peoples, and once the oil fields were taken the Russkies would be hard pressed to keep the war going without oil.

However, I think he did screw up before then, and continued to do so throughout the war, because
1)he thought in terms of numbers of soldiers and not strategic objectives (hence re-routing the invasion armies from Moscow to encircle troops unnecessarily, and delaying later counter-offensives to allow more troops and equipment to build up).
2)Plus he listened to Goering too much at Stalingrad - Goering said that he would supply the army in Stalingrad using the luftwaffe
3) and finally the politics was bad. A gentler occupation of the Soviet Union would have won the war in the east I reckon. People fight harder when they are fighting for their existence.

So I agree with you Duke, but for slightly different reasons.

Ludens

01-12-2004, 20:23

Hitler wasn't a great general. He just was an agressive man, and had the army which was best used aggresively. France's quick surrender was because the Allied generals were still thinking in terms of trench wars. This was no brilliant strategic thinking on Hitler's part, he was just following his character. He would have tried to be aggressive with any other army.

In Russia the same thing happened: his opponents were not prepared to face such aggresion. However, once his opponents figured out a way to deal with this, it was over. Once aggresion wasn't the right option any more, Germany started losing the war (off course many other factors contributed to that).
In Russia, Hitler made it worse by sending soldiers to the wrong objectives (Stalingrad, Leningrad and not the oil fields).
During the entire later part of the war, the German army tried to be agressive where they should have been defensive. The only continuos succesful resistance was in Italy, where the Germans did fight defensively.