PDA

View Full Version : Please Ubi.. don't make Washington like Napoleon.... George was not the best general



Radman500
03-06-2012, 06:27 PM
contrary to belief... Washington was not that great of a general, he was a great leader, but not the best general... he was an decent general at his time.. i mean with respect to the limited resources, manpower he had compared to the British..... but he was no Napoleon

Napoleon was literally a military genius, and arguably had one of the greatest military minds of all time

George Washington was a great, leader and a decent general, but has been criticized alot because of his tactics

Radman500
03-06-2012, 06:39 PM
washington was a mediocre general at best

Poodle_of_Doom
03-06-2012, 06:41 PM
With all due respect intended, I'd like to see any one of us take up his job, at that time, and see if we could do any better. I'm sure the man had a lot going for him.

UrDeviant1
03-06-2012, 06:45 PM
I agree, Napoleon Dynamite would kick his *** any day.

Radman500
03-06-2012, 06:47 PM
I agree, Napoleon Dynamite would kick his *** any day.
I was talking about bonaparte but. Oh well

brick177
03-06-2012, 06:49 PM
Napoleon was 7 years old when the American Revolution started, so we shouldn't compare the two, they fought in different times.

UrDeviant1
03-06-2012, 06:50 PM
I was talking about bonaparte but. Oh well

Oh, this changes everything.

ACSineQuaNon
03-06-2012, 06:50 PM
With all due respect intended, I'd like to see any one of us take up his job, at that time, and see if we could do any better. I'm sure the man had a lot going for him.

facepalm.jpg

Radman500
03-06-2012, 06:54 PM
facepalm.jpg

He made a good point why you facepalm?

salted onions
03-06-2012, 07:06 PM
In the GI scans, it said that Connor would meet Washington, someone who was filled with doubt and was not confident in his choices.

LightRey
03-06-2012, 07:16 PM
In the GI scans, it said that Connor would meet Washington, someone who was filled with doubt and was not confident in his choices.

Well there ya have it folks. Ubi is being realistic and truthful, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

EnXess
03-06-2012, 07:26 PM
With all due respect intended, I'd like to see any one of us take up his job, at that time, and see if we could do any better. I'm sure the man had a lot going for him.
That's hardly an argument. Can Simon Cowell sing better than every contestant on his shows? Is every film critic better than every director/actor/producer? I'm sure many here have critisised elements of the AC games, can they make a better game?


Napoleon was 7 years old when the American Revolution started, so we shouldn't compare the two, they fought in different times.
Hardly different times.

freddie_1897
03-06-2012, 07:27 PM
Yeah, We beat napoleon! Admiral Nelson FTW!

UrDeviant1
03-06-2012, 07:28 PM
Yeah, We beat napoleon! Admiral Nelson FTW!

Don't forget the good old Duke of Wellington.

brick177
03-06-2012, 07:34 PM
There's a huge difference between the military strategies of 1770 and the strategies of 1800. 1770's strategies involved mass volley firing, low maneuverability, and an aversion to skirmishing. By Napoleon's time, weapons were smaller and lighter, units were more maneuverable, skirmishing was used to brutal efficiency (arguably started by Washington who broke convention by using guerrilla tactics), and Napoleon was benefited by being an invader most of his career where he could engage in scorched earth tactics that Washington could never have done. The two can't be compared.

UrDeviant1
03-06-2012, 07:36 PM
There's a huge difference between the military strategies of 1770 and the strategies of 1800. 1770's strategies involved mass volley firing, low maneuverability, and an aversion to skirmishing. By Napoleon's time, weapons were smaller and lighter, units were more maneuverable, skirmishing was used to brutal efficiency (arguably started by Washington who broke convention by using guerrilla tactics), and Napoleon was benefited by being an invader most of his career where he could engage in scorched earth tactics that Washington could never have done. The two can't be compared.

I'd have to agree. Different weaponry/terrain etc. = different tactics and style.

Xenoxin
03-06-2012, 08:24 PM
The basics of war have been the same for centuries. It's not for nothing that the Art of War is still used in modern day tactics.

kriegerdesgottes
03-06-2012, 08:47 PM
With all due respect intended, I'd like to see any one of us take up his job, at that time, and see if we could do any better. I'm sure the man had a lot going for him.

This is a man who with a relatively uncooperative congress, an untrained army, little to no resources (his men would eat their leather shoes at times because they were so hungry) and with other members of the Army trying to get him replaced, and traitors to the cause like benedict arnold trying to hand over military locations, still managed to survive and did more to help win the Revolution than anyone and he was reluctant to take on the responsibility at all in the first place because he really did lack confidence in his own abilities but managed to have what it took to win.

Mystichobo.O
03-06-2012, 09:46 PM
There's a huge difference between the military strategies of 1770 and the strategies of 1800. 1770's strategies involved mass volley firing, low maneuverability, and an aversion to skirmishing. By Napoleon's time, weapons were smaller and lighter, units were more maneuverable, skirmishing was used to brutal efficiency (arguably started by Washington who broke convention by using guerrilla tactics), and Napoleon was benefited by being an invader most of his career where he could engage in scorched earth tactics that Washington could never have done. The two can't be compared.

Erm wth... This is just completely absurd and incorrect. Weapons were not smaller at all and certainly not lighter. Armies still used flintlock muskets until well into the 19th century. What is this game changing technological discovery you speak of that occurred in between 1770 and 1800? If you actually studied the great battles of Napoleon's time: Battle of Salamanca, Battle of Waterloo, Battle of Ligny, Battle of Quatres Bras, ect - You will find that they were fought in the exact same way as the pitched battles that Washington fought during the Revolution and indeed battles throughout the lifespan of the musket. Furthermore Napoleon did not engage in a scorched earth strategy at all and an invader would almost never benefit from scorched earth whatsoever. The Russians used scorched earth when Napoleon invaded Russia. Regardless of any difference in warfare, Napoleon's accomplishment's and number of victories far exceed that of Washington's.

Lastly, Washington did not start light infantry doctrine whatsoever. Light troops began to appear in substantial forms during the French-Indian War and it was Sir John Moore who pioneered light infantry doctrine.

Lonesoldier2012
03-06-2012, 09:48 PM
I agree, Napoleon Dynamite would kick his *** any day.
Hell yes! you gonna eat all your tots?

dannyf0621
03-06-2012, 11:29 PM
Washington really wasn't that good of a General. He was good at taking advantage of opportunities, but the American revolution was won because of the French Marquis de Lafayette and his soldiers that assisted. And this was only 25 years before Napoleon, you can compare the two. Napoleon WAS a genius, Washington was a great leader and inspirational, but he was only a decent tactician at best. He did as well as he did by organizing and communicating with various other generals around the area. He mad a name for himself in the French and Indian war, but even then he suffered heavy losses on a few occasions.

rileypoole1234
03-06-2012, 11:40 PM
I'd say Napoleon was definitely a better General than Washington was, but obviously Washington deserves loads of respect as well.

BraxtonNelson
03-08-2012, 08:52 AM
Ya well Alexander the Great was 80x better then either of them combined. And who cares.. men fight wars... to win wars it takes strategy; who cares how you do it as long as it works... General Washington was a great man, and so was Napoleon. Leave it at that, there is no reason to compare who had better strategy, its absolutely pointless seeing as how they are both dead and they wont be dueling each other anytime soon.

SlimeDynamiteD
03-08-2012, 09:24 AM
I agree, Napoleon Dynamite would kick his *** any day.

I'm sorry, whose *** would I kick any day?
​See what I did there?

Lonesoldier2012
03-08-2012, 09:29 AM
I'm sorry, whose *** would I kick any day?
​See what I did there?

I c wat u did thar

frogger504
03-08-2012, 09:30 AM
I agree. I probably shouldn't mention it but well... Here goes:

The big H was one of the greatest of all time.


Anyways, Charles Lee was the better General and candidate for President, he just didn't have the people skills for it.

SlimeDynamiteD
03-08-2012, 09:39 AM
I agree. I probably shouldn't mention it but well... Here goes:

The big H was one of the greatest of all time.


Anyways, Charles Lee was the better General and candidate for President, he just didn't have the people skills for it.

Hitler was very effective with his Blitzkrieg, though holding the parts he conquered proved a lot tougher.

Now that we're talking about great generals, what about: Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar or: Salah Al-din (Saladin).

LightRey
03-08-2012, 10:22 AM
Hitler was very effective with his Blitzkrieg, though holding the parts he conquered proved a lot tougher.

Now that we're talking about great generals, what about: Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar or: Salah Al-din (Saladin).

Alexander the Great, Hannibal, but most of all: Subotai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai).

Sukramo
03-08-2012, 10:32 AM
Subotai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai).

The god of Badassery.

LightRey
03-08-2012, 10:35 AM
The god of Badassery.

Indeed.

gmoney8869
03-08-2012, 11:39 AM
Washington was not a bad General. He very effectively fought an asymmetrical war against an overwhelming enemy, and knew how to use what little help he got.

His tactics against the British throughout New Jersey were adaptive and intelligent. In many ways Washington pioneered the asymmetrical tactics that the modern US has had so much trouble defeating lol. Still, he's not an all time great tactician. Washington's true greatness lies in political leadership. He was truly the man who created America, and without his unifying influence and his historic refusal of absolute power, even when it was within his reach, America would have died before it started. That's what makes him better than Napoleon, he gave the power to the people instead of consolidating it for himself.

Now, on the matter of all time Generals.

-Alexander
-Caesar
-Napoleon
-Saladin
-Qin
-Eisenhower
-Subutai

On the matter of Hitler, sorry but no. Sure, his conquest of Western Europe appears to be on almost a Napoleon level, but he had many advantages. His main skill was as an ideological figure, he was able to mobilize greater Germany, including Austria, and create a huge military and industrial base. His armies had already been tested in Spain, and he had experienced Generals. The rest of Western Europe really just allowed themselves to be run over. France totally failed to mobilize military or industrial power, instead relying entirely on the Maginot Line. When it turned out that it was actually very easy to simply go around the Maginot Line, they fell with little resistance. I say France conquered itself. The smaller countries never even really had a powerful military. Western Europe allowed Germany to conquer them, simple as that.

In the East is where Hitler's incompetence is really evident. Poland was an effortless gang-bang, but Hitler still screwed it up wasting huge amounts of resources exterminating the Jews, for no reason than his own insanity. Then he makes the single greatest mistake in military history, invading Russia. Not only that, but invading it at the wrong time of year and with an improperly equipped army. The invasion was doomed before it began, and all of Hitler's generals knew it. Hitler ignored all advice and refused to retreat, even as his entire army was being decimated. Pure idiotic insanity.

While he does this he declares war on the US, despite not having the capacity to fight us. He might as well have shot himself right then. Hitler was lucky enough to be able to roll all over Europe with no trouble, and he threw it away. The countries that defeated him probably wouldn't have even entered the war if he hadn't forced them to. And meanwhile he was busy Holocausting, wasting his resources and turning occupied people against him.

Hitler was not a great general, or even a good one. The main reason he lost WW2 was himself.

frogger504
03-08-2012, 11:51 AM
I'm wondering if you know much about history.

He took the country from an EXTREMELY low point and brought it up to be a great nation which conquered many. Had he not made some few mistakes I believe he would have succeeded in taking over it all.

He was able to manipulate the people in an incredible way to get power and rose a great army.

gmoney8869
03-08-2012, 12:15 PM
Well i'm wondering if you read my post.

I quote myself, "His main skill was as an ideological figure, he was able to mobilize greater Germany, including Austria, and create a huge military and industrial base."

His ability was in the transformative effect he had on Germany itself. He turned a nation of beggars into a nation of sociopathic warriors. He made Germany strong, and the rest of Europe remained weak. Thats why he had success in the war. Not because he had great strategy. His strategy is why he failed.

LightRey
03-08-2012, 01:44 PM
Well i'm wondering if you read my post.

I quote myself, "His main skill was as an ideological figure, he was able to mobilize greater Germany, including Austria, and create a huge military and industrial base."

His ability was in the transformative effect he had on Germany itself. He turned a nation of beggars into a nation of sociopathic warriors. He made Germany strong, and the rest of Europe remained weak. Thats why he had success in the war. Not because he had great strategy. His strategy is why he failed.

True. He was actually a terrible military strategist.

Apirka
03-08-2012, 01:52 PM
Indeed. He took credit for others achievements as well and if he hadn't had somewhat competent people at his side, he'd never have come as far as he did. Military strategy was really not something he was good at. At all.

brick177
03-08-2012, 02:16 PM
In fact, Hitler's downfall was refusing to listen to the advice of his generals.

tarrero
03-08-2012, 03:43 PM
Hitler:
Very good orator
AWFUL general

frogger504
03-08-2012, 04:09 PM
I guess I was wrong. Hmkay.

gmoney8869
03-08-2012, 05:56 PM
I'm wondering if you know much about history.


I guess I was wrong. Hmkay.

Kinda bothers me when people call others uninformed on a topic they themselves are uninformed about. If there's one thing I'm sure I know about, it's World War 2. It's almost an obsession for me. Better villains, better heroes, and better story arc than any movie IMO.