Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who was history's greatest admiral?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:

The general populace haven't heard of Patton, Napoleon yes, but not Patton. In fact the example is so singular as to be a weakness in your argument, Napoleon is remembered but there are plenty of fine military leaders from major powers who are not.


Laughing


This is now getting ridiculous, they made a film about Patton's life starring George C. Scott and it won six Oscars! I would say as far as military leaders go, he is well known - is he as well known as a celebrity such as David Beckham or Lady Gaga? I don't suppose he is but we are talking about military leaders - not celebrities - as far as military leaders go - Patton is famous.

Again, the point is being missed, the article talked about people who are not military experts (people like yourself) working in ESL and Korean nationalist zealots who are proud of the achievments of their military heroes. No-one talked about what a military expert thought.

Quote:
Therefore any attempt to try and link the size of a conflict/power with how well a general is remembered is doomed to failure.


That must be the most stupid thing you have said up till now.

Quote:
Also I am not just saying experts, I dont have a Phd, yet I know Mannerheim because I am interested. Plenty of interested people know these figures. The general public dont, but then again who (aside from Napoleon) do they know ? Moreover how deep is that knowledge? It is likely to be as superficial as knowing the name, are you telling me the average joe knows what year and against which foes the battle of Austerlitz was fought against?


Montgomery, Wellington, Julius Caesar, Mao, Hannibal - people will have heard of them in relation to Mannerheim and Giap. The article is making a simple point which you are trying to complicate for some reason.

No one is saying that these figures who you pointed out are not revered in the appropiate circles - but it is strange (and don't you dare suggest otherwise) that General Custer is more well known than Mannerheim - but one was a military genius and one was a military failure.

Lawrence of Arabia shot the camel he was riding on as he was going into battle, Giap dug a masive tunnel under the French without them knowing, one is revered and one is relatively unknown.

Quote:
Most glaringly you have not answered adequately as to why you are only considering Westphalian sovereign states. If we are talking about how well a military figure is remembered and how that relates to the size of the country he comes from and the size of the force he led, then why is that important.


Because we are talking about 'Minor Powers' in relation to regional, major and super powers. That is it. Now if you want to talk about guerilla leaders and revolutionaries - it is another debate.

Quote:
They were minor powers, their power was minor in relation to the enemy they were facing. They were important figures in the history of countries that today that are regarded as being smaller and not influential. Yes there are differences, but 조선 Korea is completely different to that of the modern ROK, so by your definition even Yi wouldn't count.


No - that was what not was meant because then the IRA would be described as a 'minor power' and if you said that to an military historian you would be laughed at - I will make it easy for you - super power: United States, major power: Great Britian, regional power: Australia, Minor power: Ghana.

Quote:
As for your equivalence without judging their motives it is quite clear to see a difference in their methods. Washington and Bolivar fought their wars in completely different ways to that of the IRA and ETA. Sure there is crossover in terms of guerrilla tactics employed, but how many pitched battles did the IRA fight? Washington and Bolivar had regular armies, surely you can see the difference.


But their aims and objectives were exactly the same. Warfare - as you may or may not know - changed with the Boer war and the complete and utter genius of Smuts, Botha, de la Rey and de Wet - so it is silly to compare the ways wars were fought pre Boer war - yes, world war 1 was the last real big scale war fought in that way. All the European nations - especially the British - learned and change the way they fought war based on what they learned from the Boers and the 'Kommando units'

Quote:
North Vietnam and later unified Vietnam is a small country their economy and military then and now being many leagues inferior to the US and their allies. Giap was fighting a war against a bigger power and won, he is not an obscure figure and he matches your arbitrarily defined conditions. Your attempts to wriggle out of it by saying they had an airforce and navy is ridiculous considering how weak it was compared to the US airforce and Navy.


Again you are talking about weaponary - the Vietnamese had better soliders, better leaders, better supply routes - they had been fighting since 1942 and the Japanese. So though the Americans had better weapons - everything else more or less - they were at a disadvantage.

Giap is a very obscure figure compared to Nelson, Patton and Napoleon. To even argue that is ridiculous.

Quote:
If you dismiss North Vietnam you have to dismiss 조선 Korea as they too had thousands of battle hardened troops and even more strikingly a far more powerful navy in comparison to their enemy.


Who has dismissed the North Koreans?

Quote:
The limitations you have put on the argument (for no reason) are so strict they have even eliminated the example to which you were referring.



The 'limitations' spoken about are via the article. The article - let me just summarise, is based on ESL teachers, their knowledge and the knowledge of the recruiter - not Anthony Beevor or Max Hastings - comparing you to them is a joke right? And let me tell you, based on your performance up until now - 'Brecher would wipe the floor with you on any military debate.

Quote:
You are trying to dismiss the example of Frederick by saying that he mainly fought the Austrians, but a) Austria was far superior to Prussia in terms of power b) The French and Russians sent considerable forces. Frederick the Great fought as King of a tiny European state and defeated the combined forces of Austria, France and Russia. Done.


He fought mainly the Austrians - that is all there is to it, the Russians and the French sent in support but it was the Austrians he mainly defeated.

Quote:
1973 proved that Israel won easily in 1967 because they had better generalship and logistics. They did not outclass the Arabs to any significant degree in technology and were dwarfed by the political and military power of the Arabs. The example stands.


Now you are disagreeing with what we agreed to previously, you went from saying that the weaponary was more than a match to saying it wasn't and you are not saying there was no significant degree, the Egyptian army nor were the Syrians any good, nor was their leadership, even though the weapons were inferior to the Americans, those same weapons won out against American weaponary in Vietnam and Angola. So it was the men themselves that were terribe - it took the Israelis SIX DAYS.

Quote:
1948 They were no odds to win against. There was no Egyptian and Jordanian plan to conquer Israel. Israel secured its survival by of course not being a walkover militarily, but mainly by diplomacy.


Consensus was the Israelis were going to get crushed. Nobody thought Israel - who had been independent for months - were any match for the Arab league - to say the 1967 war was a bigger upset is just plain stupid.


The movie Patton was released in 1970 and you said the general public, so if I were to ask a random on a street in England who General Patton was you would say they would know. Yeah I bet.

Also your euro-centrism is becoming more and more apparent, unsurprising considering the people you read. Some of the largest conflicts fought in the pre-modern era were fought in china and yet no one knows any figures from those wars. Also China is a large country, a major power, and yet no one knows. Maybe there is another reason at play than just the size/duration of a conflict/country.

Once again you are moving the goalposts, I was not trying to argue that my examples were more well known than a Caesar or Napoleon. Just that they are well known and celebrated, in their nations and by the interested internationally.

Sitting bull is just as well known as Custer, but sorry I forgot we cant include him because he doesn't have his own national mint or some other rubbish.

Also revolutionaries is not a different debate, it is the same debate, just that you and apparently Brecher only consider states by the most limiting definition as being worthy of mention.

If you knew anything you would know that power in relation to conflict is an incredibly controversial and hotly debated topic. Your laughably simplistic definitions are frankly embarrassing.

Furthermore you really have to stop using the word 'genius' so liberally. Also because they had the same aims ie win, their wars are therefore comparable. Sorry what? The wars of Simon Bolivar were apparently the same as the IRA during The Troubles because they had the same aims?

I am not for the last time saying the Americans had only better weaponry, they had in terms of naval and air forces a numerical advantage. They had carrier groups. In terms of ground forces they were much, much better supplied and armed. The NV's were famed for surviving on so little because of the state of their logistics. The American and allied units training was also of a very high standard.

The soldiers who fought the Japanese would have been ancient by the time of the Tet offensive. Even veterans of the French-Indochina war would be pushing 30+.

The French and Russians sent support? Are you serious. At the battle of Kunersdorf the Russians numbered 40,000 compared to the Austrians 18,000. That victory being one of the coalitions biggest victories.

If the Arabs were such idiots as you claim why did they do so well in 1973? 67 flattered the Israelis thanks to their leaders, who fought a war as a state against a superior foe.

You really need to read up on 1948.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


The movie Patton was released in 1970 and you said the general public, so if I were to ask a random on a street in England who General Patton was you would say they would know. Yeah I bet.


Yes, I bet anyone with a reasonable education would. The film is a popular film if you check out amazon.co.uk the film has 39 reviews and 4 and a half stars - it compares very favourably to the famous film of that time 'Love Story' (35 reviews, 4 and a half stars), so yes, Patton is famous in relation to other military leaders.

Quote:
Also your euro-centrism is becoming more and more apparent, unsurprising considering the people you read. Some of the largest conflicts fought in the pre-modern era were fought in china and yet no one knows any figures from those wars. Also China is a large country, a major power, and yet no one knows. Maybe there is another reason at play than just the size/duration of a conflict/country.


But China wasn't one nation at the time was it? It was hundreds of different kingdoms, dynasties and empires - China - was only unified as recently as 1949. Before then and Japanese occupation the whole land of China was part of the Qing empire - there was all kinds of internal wars and strife.

Quote:
Once again you are moving the goalposts, I was not trying to argue that my examples were more well known than a Caesar or Napoleon. Just that they are well known and celebrated, in their nations and by the interested internationally.


Which is what Brecher was saying - so you are agreeing with what he is saying? What he is also saying is that the leaders of bigger armies are also more celebrated which is also correct, Napoleon, Patton, Nelson, The Duke of Wellington - how can you say they are not?


Quote:
Sitting bull is just as well known as Custer, but sorry I forgot we cant include him because he doesn't have his own national mint or some other rubbish.


Custer was a General in the United States army - we are talking about the leaders of armies of minor/major powers. Sitting Bull - was a leader of his people, great military genius I am sure. But not the same.

Quote:
Also revolutionaries is not a different debate, it is the same debate, just that you and apparently Brecher only consider states by the most limiting definition as being worthy of mention.


Of course we are if we are talking about national identity and conciousness
and what a great military figure brings to the national psyche. Yi and Mannerheim are revered in their home countries and nowhere else except for people who are interested in the conflicts they took part in. However, there are some military leaders who transcend national boundaries and are famous - I have already named them and you know who they are yourself. That is all Brecher was saying.

Quote:
If you knew anything you would know that power in relation to conflict is an incredibly controversial and hotly debated topic. Your laughably simplistic definitions are frankly embarrassing.


The only thing embarassing is your performance here, you have learned a few things on here and I am happy to have taught you.

Quote:
Furthermore you really have to stop using the word 'genius' so liberally. Also because they had the same aims ie win, their wars are therefore comparable. Sorry what? The wars of Simon Bolivar were apparently the same as the IRA during The Troubles because they had the same aims?


That is right, their aims were to rid themselves of a colonial power but they way they fought them was different. It is really simple. What are you not understanding about that?

Quote:
I am not for the last time saying the Americans had only better weaponry, they had in terms of naval and air forces a numerical advantage. They had carrier groups. In terms of ground forces they were much, much better supplied and armed. The NV's were famed for surviving on so little because of the state of their logistics. The American and allied units training was also of a very high standard.


It didn't do them any good, and that is because the man on the ground was superior, had superior local knowledge, was better acclimatized and trained to fight in that particular terrain and a host of other facts which made the superiority of the American weaponary and technology moot.

Quote:
The soldiers who fought the Japanese would have been ancient by the time of the Tet offensive. Even veterans of the French-Indochina war would be pushing 30+.


God you are thick!

They trained the recruits who then trained the next generation, the Viet Cong/NVA leadership were mostly veterans who fought the Japanese and the French and I would guess that a fair number of senior NCO's and officer had fought the Japanese, the French or both.

Knowledge, and what works and what doesn't is passed down from generation to generation.

Quote:
The French and Russians sent support? Are you serious. At the battle of Kunersdorf the Russians numbered 40,000 compared to the Austrians 18,000. That victory being one of the coalitions biggest victories.


They were nothing figures as you well know in those days. 33000 died in combined losses on the first day of the Somme.

Quote:
If the Arabs were such idiots as you claim why did they do so well in 1973? 67 flattered the Israelis thanks to their leaders, who fought a war as a state against a superior foe.


They didn't do so well, they just did better than 1967 - which wouldn't have been all that hard.

Quote:
You really need to read up on 1948.


You need to read up on everything - you aren't as smart as you think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


The movie Patton was released in 1970 and you said the general public, so if I were to ask a random on a street in England who General Patton was you would say they would know. Yeah I bet.


Yes, I bet anyone with a reasonable education would. The film is a popular film if you check out amazon.co.uk the film has 39 reviews and 4 and a half stars - it compares very favourably to the famous film of that time 'Love Story' (35 reviews, 4 and a half stars), so yes, Patton is famous in relation to other military leaders.

Quote:
Also your euro-centrism is becoming more and more apparent, unsurprising considering the people you read. Some of the largest conflicts fought in the pre-modern era were fought in china and yet no one knows any figures from those wars. Also China is a large country, a major power, and yet no one knows. Maybe there is another reason at play than just the size/duration of a conflict/country.


But China wasn't one nation at the time was it? It was hundreds of different kingdoms, dynasties and empires - China - was only unified as recently as 1949. Before then and Japanese occupation the whole land of China was part of the Qing empire - there was all kinds of internal wars and strife.

Quote:
Once again you are moving the goalposts, I was not trying to argue that my examples were more well known than a Caesar or Napoleon. Just that they are well known and celebrated, in their nations and by the interested internationally.


Which is what Brecher was saying - so you are agreeing with what he is saying? What he is also saying is that the leaders of bigger armies are also more celebrated which is also correct, Napoleon, Patton, Nelson, The Duke of Wellington - how can you say they are not?


Quote:
Sitting bull is just as well known as Custer, but sorry I forgot we cant include him because he doesn't have his own national mint or some other rubbish.


Custer was a General in the United States army - we are talking about the leaders of armies of minor/major powers. Sitting Bull - was a leader of his people, great military genius I am sure. But not the same.

Quote:
Also revolutionaries is not a different debate, it is the same debate, just that you and apparently Brecher only consider states by the most limiting definition as being worthy of mention.


Of course we are if we are talking about national identity and conciousness
and what a great military figure brings to the national psyche. Yi and Mannerheim are revered in their home countries and nowhere else except for people who are interested in the conflicts they took part in. However, there are some military leaders who transcend national boundaries and are famous - I have already named them and you know who they are yourself. That is all Brecher was saying.

Quote:
If you knew anything you would know that power in relation to conflict is an incredibly controversial and hotly debated topic. Your laughably simplistic definitions are frankly embarrassing.


The only thing embarassing is your performance here, you have learned a few things on here and I am happy to have taught you.

Quote:
Furthermore you really have to stop using the word 'genius' so liberally. Also because they had the same aims ie win, their wars are therefore comparable. Sorry what? The wars of Simon Bolivar were apparently the same as the IRA during The Troubles because they had the same aims?


That is right, their aims were to rid themselves of a colonial power but they way they fought them was different. It is really simple. What are you not understanding about that?

Quote:
I am not for the last time saying the Americans had only better weaponry, they had in terms of naval and air forces a numerical advantage. They had carrier groups. In terms of ground forces they were much, much better supplied and armed. The NV's were famed for surviving on so little because of the state of their logistics. The American and allied units training was also of a very high standard.


It didn't do them any good, and that is because the man on the ground was superior, had superior local knowledge, was better acclimatized and trained to fight in that particular terrain and a host of other facts which made the superiority of the American weaponary and technology moot.

Quote:
The soldiers who fought the Japanese would have been ancient by the time of the Tet offensive. Even veterans of the French-Indochina war would be pushing 30+.


God you are thick!

They trained the recruits who then trained the next generation, the Viet Cong/NVA leadership were mostly veterans who fought the Japanese and the French and I would guess that a fair number of senior NCO's and officer had fought the Japanese, the French or both.

Knowledge, and what works and what doesn't is passed down from generation to generation.

Quote:
The French and Russians sent support? Are you serious. At the battle of Kunersdorf the Russians numbered 40,000 compared to the Austrians 18,000. That victory being one of the coalitions biggest victories.


They were nothing figures as you well know in those days. 33000 died in combined losses on the first day of the Somme.

Quote:
If the Arabs were such idiots as you claim why did they do so well in 1973? 67 flattered the Israelis thanks to their leaders, who fought a war as a state against a superior foe.


They didn't do so well, they just did better than 1967 - which wouldn't have been all that hard.

Quote:
You really need to read up on 1948.


You need to read up on everything - you aren't as smart as you think.


If I had to pick a favourite moment from your last comment I think it would be your dismissal of the Russian contribution to the seven years war because they were smaller than the forces of WWI. 40,000 in the context of the mid-18th century was a large force. That was just one battle as well.

Another high point is when you talk about experienced NV vets training NV soldiers. Who do you think trained the US forces? Vets of WWII and the Korean war. Not to mention the military advisers who were in Vietnam during the 50s. All that of that and the undeniable fact that Vietnam is a small nation by any definition, especially in relation to the US.

Good to see you didn't bring up the supply issue again though, you seemed to have learned something at least.

Figures from the history of major powers are forgotten, figures from smaller/minor powers are remembered so frankly you and Brecher are wrong. Why it turns out like this has more to do with euro-centrism, the fact you and Brecher (the nationalist) only care about an English speaking historiography and popular culture representing these figures in movies/TV.

Your dismissal of Chinese military history is telling, the reason their heroes are not well known are down to reasons beyond the size and importance of the country/war. It completely undermines your entire point and all you can do is feebly hit back with your Euro-centric idea about what constitutes a state.

The exception doesn't just fit with China, what about India? How many huge conflicts from that area of the world are well known by the average joe.

I see your replies to the points I raised about Israel were one-liners. You seem to have run out of steam on that one, disappointing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


If I had to pick a favourite moment from your last comment I think it would be your dismissal of the Russian contribution to the seven years war because they were smaller than the forces of WWI. 40,000 in the context of the mid-18th century was a large force. That was just one battle as well.


You are trying to make out it wasn't mostly Frederick the Great vs the Austrians which is ridiculous.

Quote:
Another high point is when you talk about experienced NV vets training NV soldiers. Who do you think trained the US forces? Vets of WWII and the Korean war. Not to mention the military advisers who were in Vietnam during the 50s. All that of that and the undeniable fact that Vietnam is a small nation by any definition, especially in relation to the US.


You sound like you have never spent one minute being a solider. That I have to explain all this to you, but I will get it through into your skull.

The North Vietnamese veterans of the wars against the Japanese and the French fought on those hills and in those deltas and in that jungle for 30 odd years. They knew the land like the back of their hand. The Americans did not - and even in world war 2 - they did very little fighting in the jungle. So, one had a huge advantage over the other - do you not agree?
That lead to the North Vietnamese having a huge advantage?


Quote:
Good to see you didn't bring up the supply issue again though, you seemed to have learned something at least.


What are you wittering on about?

Quote:
Figures from the history of major powers are forgotten, figures from smaller/minor powers are remembered so frankly you and Brecher are wrong. Why it turns out like this has more to do with euro-centrism, the fact you and Brecher (the nationalist) only care about an English speaking historiography and popular culture representing these figures in movies/TV.


Sure, some military figures from larger armies are - but it would be fair to say that the ones who are remembered by the public at large are from the major powers fighting the major wars. And the ones from the minor powers are not, except the ones who are celebrated by their own people - to say that Mannenheim is as well known publically as Patton is so stupid and ridiculous - it is laughable.
Honestly, I have never ever read such an ridiculous and silly defence on eslcafe as the one you are trying to make.

Quote:
Your dismissal of Chinese military history is telling, the reason their heroes are not well known are down to reasons beyond the size and importance of the country/war. It completely undermines your entire point and all you can do is feebly hit back with your Euro-centric idea about what constitutes a state.


Nothing to do with the fact there were thousands of battles, thousands of wars thousands of casulaties and thousands of military heroes - and it is telling you never mentioned any Chinese greats when describing the military heroes from the 'Minor States'. With your own little list being rather Euro-centric

Quote:
The exception doesn't just fit with China, what about India? How many huge conflicts from that area of the world are well known by the average joe.


Indeed - same difference as with China.

Quote:
I see your replies to the points I raised about Israel were one-liners. You seem to have run out of steam on that one, disappointing.


No, this is thing thing right - your insistence that the Arabs performed well in 1973 is laughable when the reality is that they performed a bit better than they did in 1967. You're original claims are ridiculous and even suggesting that the Israelis were in anyway lucky, a joke.

You sound like to me a typical armchair general, who has never put on a uniform and never done a day's a soldiering in their life.

You tried to dismiss Brecher's writing - look pal - he has written five books and has a monthly column, where's your work? What he wrote about was quite simple - national psyche is connected to the achievements of war heroes of smaller nations, but even the best of them are not as celebrated as their counterparts from bigger armies and bigger nations.

The proof is that he is quite correct.

Your ridiculous argument that Mannenheim is as well known to the layman as General Patton is just ridiculous and daft.

Brecher would never ever dismiss the likes of Giap and Mannenheim and their capabilities. But the facts are that there are military figures from history like Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Montgomery, Patton, Mao etc - that eclipse them - and the reason was that they partook in big wars and led big armies.

It really is as simple as that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to throw this out there- A general is widely known and famous if you can take his name and throw it on a restaurant/food dish/drink.

Napoleon's French Cafe
The Kaiser's Bratwurst
Ghengis Khan's Mongolian BBQ
Nelson's Fish & Chips
William T. Sherman's 'Flaming Atlanta' 151 Shooters.
Tojo's Hibachi Grill
Ho Chi Min's Pho Palace (right next to 'Charlie Don't Surf n Turf')
Stormin Norman's Steakhouse
Pancho Villa's Mexican Grill
Santa Anna's Taqueria
Francis Drake's Pub
Julius Caesar's Italian restaurant
Wellington's Roast Beef
Marlborough's Cigar Lounge

EDIT- Khrushchev's Vodka, Patton's American Grill, Ike's Place Tavern, Monty's Good Eats, Attila's All-You-Can-Eat, Stonewall Jackson Pale Ale (Robert E. Lee is too "beloved & dignified" for a restaurant or drink), strangely "Benedict Arnold's" might work, Saladin's Middle Eastern Cuisine, William Wallace's Pub & Grill

And just added- Giuseppi (Garibaldi's) Pizzeria

Any pirate captain

Kings can work, but they don't really count i.e.: Henry VIII's (probably like a Hooters), Richard the Lionheart's, Louis XIV's

Almost, but not quite, might work regionally...

Donitz's Submarine Sandwiches
Westmoreland's Viet-American Fusion restaurant
A LeMay B-52 shot
Boudicca's Irish Pub
Yamamoto's Sushi
An Ambrose Burnside on rye, with mustard
Michael Collins' Irish Bar (No Black & Tans, but Car Bombs 50% off during happy hour- I kid I kid...)


Last edited by Steelrails on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Giuseppi (Garibaldi's) Pizzeria


Yes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
le-paul



Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

steel, why would Boudicca have an irish pub named after her? She was Iceni or Regini wasn't she?

It would be more like 'Boudiccas flaming grill' or something...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewchon



Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Location: Back in Oz. Living in ISIS Aust.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

le-paul wrote:
steel, why would Boudicca have an irish pub named after her? She was Iceni or Regini wasn't she?

It would be more like 'Boudiccas flaming grill' or something...


Because, Enya wrote a song titled "Boudicca", that's why. I've been to few Irish lesbian pubs and they are pretty good drinking holes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


If I had to pick a favourite moment from your last comment I think it would be your dismissal of the Russian contribution to the seven years war because they were smaller than the forces of WWI. 40,000 in the context of the mid-18th century was a large force. That was just one battle as well.


You are trying to make out it wasn't mostly Frederick the Great vs the Austrians which is ridiculous.

Quote:
Another high point is when you talk about experienced NV vets training NV soldiers. Who do you think trained the US forces? Vets of WWII and the Korean war. Not to mention the military advisers who were in Vietnam during the 50s. All that of that and the undeniable fact that Vietnam is a small nation by any definition, especially in relation to the US.


You sound like you have never spent one minute being a solider. That I have to explain all this to you, but I will get it through into your skull.

The North Vietnamese veterans of the wars against the Japanese and the French fought on those hills and in those deltas and in that jungle for 30 odd years. They knew the land like the back of their hand. The Americans did not - and even in world war 2 - they did very little fighting in the jungle. So, one had a huge advantage over the other - do you not agree?
That lead to the North Vietnamese having a huge advantage?


Quote:
Good to see you didn't bring up the supply issue again though, you seemed to have learned something at least.


What are you wittering on about?

Quote:
Figures from the history of major powers are forgotten, figures from smaller/minor powers are remembered so frankly you and Brecher are wrong. Why it turns out like this has more to do with euro-centrism, the fact you and Brecher (the nationalist) only care about an English speaking historiography and popular culture representing these figures in movies/TV.


Sure, some military figures from larger armies are - but it would be fair to say that the ones who are remembered by the public at large are from the major powers fighting the major wars. And the ones from the minor powers are not, except the ones who are celebrated by their own people - to say that Mannenheim is as well known publically as Patton is so stupid and ridiculous - it is laughable.
Honestly, I have never ever read such an ridiculous and silly defence on eslcafe as the one you are trying to make.

Quote:
Your dismissal of Chinese military history is telling, the reason their heroes are not well known are down to reasons beyond the size and importance of the country/war. It completely undermines your entire point and all you can do is feebly hit back with your Euro-centric idea about what constitutes a state.


Nothing to do with the fact there were thousands of battles, thousands of wars thousands of casulaties and thousands of military heroes - and it is telling you never mentioned any Chinese greats when describing the military heroes from the 'Minor States'. With your own little list being rather Euro-centric

Quote:
The exception doesn't just fit with China, what about India? How many huge conflicts from that area of the world are well known by the average joe.


Indeed - same difference as with China.

Quote:
I see your replies to the points I raised about Israel were one-liners. You seem to have run out of steam on that one, disappointing.


No, this is thing thing right - your insistence that the Arabs performed well in 1973 is laughable when the reality is that they performed a bit better than they did in 1967. You're original claims are ridiculous and even suggesting that the Israelis were in anyway lucky, a joke.

You sound like to me a typical armchair general, who has never put on a uniform and never done a day's a soldiering in their life.

You tried to dismiss Brecher's writing - look pal - he has written five books and has a monthly column, where's your work? What he wrote about was quite simple - national psyche is connected to the achievements of war heroes of smaller nations, but even the best of them are not as celebrated as their counterparts from bigger armies and bigger nations.

The proof is that he is quite correct.

Your ridiculous argument that Mannenheim is as well known to the layman as General Patton is just ridiculous and daft.

Brecher would never ever dismiss the likes of Giap and Mannenheim and their capabilities. But the facts are that there are military figures from history like Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Montgomery, Patton, Mao etc - that eclipse them - and the reason was that they partook in big wars and led big armies.

It really is as simple as that.


I wondered how long it would take for you fall back on the lazy argument from authority. Which I find doubly amusing since your authority is not an academic, nor even a veteran. I would gladly concede that this brecher guy has a greater knowledge than me, but not so much so that I cannot dare question his opinions. It’s not like I am going up against an Oxford don.

Also did you serve? I feel like I am touching a nerve. Maybe you spent 10 years in Afghan with medals galore, all I can say to that thank you for your service; you are braver man than me. However, even if you did it has absolutely nothing to do with how well you are able to reason an argument. Ian Kershaw was never a Nazi, but he knows quite a lot about them.

As for Vietnam, you do realise you are trying to argue that N Vietnam and indeed the Vietnam of today is of equal power to the US. No the US was and is much larger and much more powerful.

The US and their allies enjoyed better logistics, equipment and weapons. Not to mention an overwhelming superiority in Naval and Air power. Economically the Vietnamese don’t come close to American power. Just to jog your memory as you have a tendency for forgetting what I wrote, the so-called wittering was in relation to your claims that the N Viets were better supplied. They weren’t, you were wrong, I am glad I could clear that up for you.

North Vietnam was small in relation to the US on its own. Now that doesn't mean the N Viets didn't enjoy any advantages, but rather in a sheer power comparison they were dwarfed. Also this digression into training is bizarre. The N Viets were well trained, so were the yanks and their S Viet allies also knew something about the land. It is obvious you are going down this tangent because you are failing to convince even yourself that N Vietnam was a mighty global empire.

I said in my original post that Frederick fought against France, Austria and Russia. I have never denied that he fought the Austrians. You were the one trying to make out that the French and Russians merely sent 'support'. Despite the fact that the Russians and French both sent substantial land forces.

I gave you Kunesdorf before, but now how about the battle of Kay where 47,000 Russians defeated a Prussian army. 60,000 French, battle of Minden. 92,000 French, battle of Villinghausen. You want dismiss that as merely support? Keep digging your hole it’s an easy win for me.

Although the most depressing aspect of this exchange is that you are still misconstruing what I am saying.

My problem with brecher's argument is that if we use the general public as our standard that is an incredibly low bar to set it at. What’s the point of saying most average joes dont know Yi, but know Napoleon. Most people couldn't place Cromwell, Nelson or any other figure from history full stop.

Also his argument seems to be focused on an English speaking american audience. He says Yi isn’t know, but in Korea I would wager more people know about him than Patton. Despite that one film from 1970.

This is the crux of what I am saying, Americans by and large don’t know Chinese figures and Chinese by and large don’t know american figures. There is something more at play than simply big wars = remembered.

You counter with Napoleon et al but trying to suggest a correlation between large war/ country = remembered and small war/ country forgotten doesn’t take into account the countless skilled generals from major countries who fought large wars and are as forgotten as Yi.

Mannerheim and the many others I mentioned that you purposely forgot are remembered in their own country and celebrated. They have international acclaim and volumes written about them in many different languages. However. you and Brecher's big revelation, that was so important for you to hijack a previously interesting thread, is that Napoleon has more brand recognition among people who know scarcely anything about history anyway. Wow, thanks for sharing.

Plus you have still yet to give a credible reason as to why the extent of figures longevity in the minds of the masses is dependent upon their possessing of a national mint.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


I wondered how long it would take for you fall back on the lazy argument from authority. Which I find doubly amusing since your authority is not an academic, nor even a veteran. I would gladly concede that this brecher guy has a greater knowledge than me, but not so much so that I cannot dare question his opinions. It’s not like I am going up against an Oxford don.



Because I am having to explain basic stuff, if you are going to laud your knowledge of military history then it does help if you know about being a soldier and what they do. There is a glaring lack of knowledge in your posts about that very subject.



Quote:
Also did you serve? I feel like I am touching a nerve. Maybe you spent 10 years in Afghan with medals galore, all I can say to that thank you for your service; you are braver man than me. However, even if you did it has absolutely nothing to do with how well you are able to reason an argument. Ian Kershaw was never a Nazi, but he knows quite a lot about them.


Yes, I did 'serve' no need to thank me, I joined because I couldn't get a job at 16. Fortunatley Afghanistan was before my time. I disagree on your
assessment about experience being a soldier is not necessary to reason an argument - knowing the basics of soldiering is essential to see why some situations worked and some don't or didn't.


Quote:
As for Vietnam, you do realise you are trying to argue that N Vietnam and indeed the Vietnam of today is of equal power to the US. No the US was and is much larger and much more powerful.


The were certainly the equal in the jungles. I am explaining basic military tactics 101. Local knowledge trumps a lot of things in battle. The Yugoslav partisans held down 10 SS divisions in world war 2, illiterate peasants in Afghanistan have always defeated better armed and better trained foes for centuries. Add to the fact that the NVA/Viet Cong were a battle hardened army with experienced leadership and a large carde of NCO's who had experience of jungle combat against the French and the Japanese
and you can say, that despite disadvantages in regards weaponary and technology - they held the cards in other ways.


Quote:
The US and their allies enjoyed better logistics, equipment and weapons. Not to mention an overwhelming superiority in Naval and Air power. Economically the Vietnamese don’t come close to American power. Just to jog your memory as you have a tendency for forgetting what I wrote, the so-called wittering was in relation to your claims that the N Viets were better supplied. They weren’t, you were wrong, I am glad I could clear that up for you.


They did not enjoy better logistics! That is a joke right - the North Vietnamese had an uninterrupted overland supply line via Moscow an Peking. The Americans and their allies could only have so much on the ground they could ship in. How do you think the North Vietnamese were able to fight for so long? I would argue that the military logistics of the North Vietnamese was far superior due to location and the proximity of their allies - mainly China and the Soviet Union.

Quote:
North Vietnam was small in relation to the US on its own. Now that doesn't mean the N Viets didn't enjoy any advantages, but rather in a sheer power comparison they were dwarfed. Also this digression into training is bizarre. The N Viets were well trained, so were the yanks and their S Viet allies also knew something about the land. It is obvious you are going down this tangent because you are failing to convince even yourself that N Vietnam was a mighty global empire.


We are going back to technology and weaponary - it doesn't win battles! The insurgents on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq have been more than a match despite the weapons and technology. Again, numbers have nothing to do with winning battles, the Italians dwarfed the Commonwealth forces in Libya but lost, the Argentinians dwarfed the Task Force in the Falklands but lost. As for the South Vietnamese - they were poorly led, poorly trained - even by the admission of the Americans - and the leadership didn't have the battle hardened experience of the NVA/Viet Cong - most of the SVA were French trained and were part of the French army that surrendered to the Japanese.


Quote:
I said in my original post that Frederick fought against France, Austria and Russia. I have never denied that he fought the Austrians. You were the one trying to make out that the French and Russians merely sent 'support'. Despite the fact that the Russians and French both sent substantial land forces.


It was still mainly the Austrians.

Quote:
I gave you Kunesdorf before, but now how about the battle of Kay where 47,000 Russians defeated a Prussian army. 60,000 French, battle of Minden. 92,000 French, battle of Villinghausen. You want dismiss that as merely support? Keep digging your hole it’s an easy win for me.


Laughing

Quote:
Although the most depressing aspect of this exchange is that you are still misconstruing what I am saying.

My problem with brecher's argument is that if we use the general public as our standard that is an incredibly low bar to set it at. What’s the point of saying most average joes dont know Yi, but know Napoleon. Most people couldn't place Cromwell, Nelson or any other figure from history full stop.


THAT IS HIS POINT!

A low bar has been set (ESL teachers/Korean recruiters)

ESL teachers discuss war and tactics around coffee tables about long gone wars. Korean recruiters use the legacy of obscure naval geniuses to attract a certain type of teacher. His legacy should be much more but even his own countryman can't even get the dates right.

What is the point - the point is - I am surprised I am point out something so obvious. If Yi was an American or British and had defeated 300 French or Japanese ships with just 12 of their own craft - he would be Nelson/Nimitz/Rommel/Patton/Montgomery combined. But because he is Korean - he is stuck in obscurity apart from war nerds and Koreans.

Quote:
Also his argument seems to be focused on an English speaking american audience. He says Yi isn’t know, but in Korea I would wager more people know about him than Patton. Despite that one film from 1970.


Of course he is writing for a certain demographic - people who have never heard of Yi or even have a passing knowledge of ESL teachers and the type of teachers that work in that industry. And I am sure more people in Korea are more knowledgeable about Yi than Patton - but I wager it won't be the same case anywhere else in the world.

Let's get this straight - the film Patton is seen a epic masterpiece, it won SEVEN OSCARS, no ordinary film and still a popular choice on both amazon sites.

Quote:
This is the crux of what I am saying, Americans by and large don’t know Chinese figures and Chinese by and large don’t know american figures. There is something more at play than simply big wars = remembered.


Most global wars have involved the Anglosphere and the west, I think that is a fair comment. People know more about British and American leaders because they are the ones sending troops all around the globe, they were the main players in two world wars. Napoleon went as far as Egypt and India. No-one is saying that Mannenheim isn't a genius because he was but - his claim to military genius was very short in comparison to other leaders of that time - though it safeguarded the future of his country.


Quote:
You counter with Napoleon et al but trying to suggest a correlation between large war/ country = remembered and small war/ country forgotten doesn’t take into account the countless skilled generals from major countries who fought large wars and are as forgotten as Yi.


Again, Brecher covered this, that is because bigger armies have more officers and many excellent officers are forgotten in the midsts of time, as are the failures. It takes someone special to be remembered, Montgomery is remembered for the right reasons, Haig is remembered for the wrong reasons.

Quote:
Mannerheim and the many others I mentioned that you purposely forgot are remembered in their own country and celebrated. They have international acclaim and volumes written about them in many different languages. However. you and Brecher's big revelation, that was so important for you to hijack a previously interesting thread, is that Napoleon has more brand recognition among people who know scarcely anything about history anyway. Wow, thanks for sharing.


Yes, they are celebrated in their own country, my grandmother is a Finn (I hate bringing that little tidbit up) and yes, they are acclaimed by military historians but again - the article is not about historians - it is about ESL teachers who are mostly wannabe war nerds, who do have a bit of knowledge but probably not that much - and then we have the Korean recruiter who is blinded by nationalism but it turns out his nationalism was justified in the genius of Yi. The article is about ignorance - not about knowledge. You should write an article - and let's see what kind of readership you get.

Quote:
Plus you have still yet to give a credible reason as to why the extent of figures longevity in the minds of the masses is dependent upon their possessing of a national mint.


Simply, big wars and big armies produce the most remembered historical figures - not everyone gets remembered but the main players do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


I wondered how long it would take for you fall back on the lazy argument from authority. Which I find doubly amusing since your authority is not an academic, nor even a veteran. I would gladly concede that this brecher guy has a greater knowledge than me, but not so much so that I cannot dare question his opinions. It’s not like I am going up against an Oxford don.



Because I am having to explain basic stuff, if you are going to laud your knowledge of military history then it does help if you know about being a soldier and what they do. There is a glaring lack of knowledge in your posts about that very subject.



Quote:
Also did you serve? I feel like I am touching a nerve. Maybe you spent 10 years in Afghan with medals galore, all I can say to that thank you for your service; you are braver man than me. However, even if you did it has absolutely nothing to do with how well you are able to reason an argument. Ian Kershaw was never a Nazi, but he knows quite a lot about them.


Yes, I did 'serve' no need to thank me, I joined because I couldn't get a job at 16. Fortunatley Afghanistan was before my time. I disagree on your
assessment about experience being a soldier is not necessary to reason an argument - knowing the basics of soldiering is essential to see why some situations worked and some don't or didn't.


Quote:
As for Vietnam, you do realise you are trying to argue that N Vietnam and indeed the Vietnam of today is of equal power to the US. No the US was and is much larger and much more powerful.


The were certainly the equal in the jungles. I am explaining basic military tactics 101. Local knowledge trumps a lot of things in battle. The Yugoslav partisans held down 10 SS divisions in world war 2, illiterate peasants in Afghanistan have always defeated better armed and better trained foes for centuries. Add to the fact that the NVA/Viet Cong were a battle hardened army with experienced leadership and a large carde of NCO's who had experience of jungle combat against the French and the Japanese
and you can say, that despite disadvantages in regards weaponary and technology - they held the cards in other ways.


Quote:
The US and their allies enjoyed better logistics, equipment and weapons. Not to mention an overwhelming superiority in Naval and Air power. Economically the Vietnamese don’t come close to American power. Just to jog your memory as you have a tendency for forgetting what I wrote, the so-called wittering was in relation to your claims that the N Viets were better supplied. They weren’t, you were wrong, I am glad I could clear that up for you.


They did not enjoy better logistics! That is a joke right - the North Vietnamese had an uninterrupted overland supply line via Moscow an Peking. The Americans and their allies could only have so much on the ground they could ship in. How do you think the North Vietnamese were able to fight for so long? I would argue that the military logistics of the North Vietnamese was far superior due to location and the proximity of their allies - mainly China and the Soviet Union.

Quote:
North Vietnam was small in relation to the US on its own. Now that doesn't mean the N Viets didn't enjoy any advantages, but rather in a sheer power comparison they were dwarfed. Also this digression into training is bizarre. The N Viets were well trained, so were the yanks and their S Viet allies also knew something about the land. It is obvious you are going down this tangent because you are failing to convince even yourself that N Vietnam was a mighty global empire.


We are going back to technology and weaponary - it doesn't win battles! The insurgents on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq have been more than a match despite the weapons and technology. Again, numbers have nothing to do with winning battles, the Italians dwarfed the Commonwealth forces in Libya but lost, the Argentinians dwarfed the Task Force in the Falklands but lost. As for the South Vietnamese - they were poorly led, poorly trained - even by the admission of the Americans - and the leadership didn't have the battle hardened experience of the NVA/Viet Cong - most of the SVA were French trained and were part of the French army that surrendered to the Japanese.


Quote:
I said in my original post that Frederick fought against France, Austria and Russia. I have never denied that he fought the Austrians. You were the one trying to make out that the French and Russians merely sent 'support'. Despite the fact that the Russians and French both sent substantial land forces.


It was still mainly the Austrians.

Quote:
I gave you Kunesdorf before, but now how about the battle of Kay where 47,000 Russians defeated a Prussian army. 60,000 French, battle of Minden. 92,000 French, battle of Villinghausen. You want dismiss that as merely support? Keep digging your hole it’s an easy win for me.


Laughing

Quote:
Although the most depressing aspect of this exchange is that you are still misconstruing what I am saying.

My problem with brecher's argument is that if we use the general public as our standard that is an incredibly low bar to set it at. What’s the point of saying most average joes dont know Yi, but know Napoleon. Most people couldn't place Cromwell, Nelson or any other figure from history full stop.


THAT IS HIS POINT!

A low bar has been set (ESL teachers/Korean recruiters)

ESL teachers discuss war and tactics around coffee tables about long gone wars. Korean recruiters use the legacy of obscure naval geniuses to attract a certain type of teacher. His legacy should be much more but even his own countryman can't even get the dates right.

What is the point - the point is - I am surprised I am point out something so obvious. If Yi was an American or British and had defeated 300 French or Japanese ships with just 12 of their own craft - he would be Nelson/Nimitz/Rommel/Patton/Montgomery combined. But because he is Korean - he is stuck in obscurity apart from war nerds and Koreans.

Quote:
Also his argument seems to be focused on an English speaking american audience. He says Yi isn’t know, but in Korea I would wager more people know about him than Patton. Despite that one film from 1970.


Of course he is writing for a certain demographic - people who have never heard of Yi or even have a passing knowledge of ESL teachers and the type of teachers that work in that industry. And I am sure more people in Korea are more knowledgeable about Yi than Patton - but I wager it won't be the same case anywhere else in the world.

Let's get this straight - the film Patton is seen a epic masterpiece, it won SEVEN OSCARS, no ordinary film and still a popular choice on both amazon sites.

Quote:
This is the crux of what I am saying, Americans by and large don’t know Chinese figures and Chinese by and large don’t know american figures. There is something more at play than simply big wars = remembered.


Most global wars have involved the Anglosphere and the west, I think that is a fair comment. People know more about British and American leaders because they are the ones sending troops all around the globe, they were the main players in two world wars. Napoleon went as far as Egypt and India. No-one is saying that Mannenheim isn't a genius because he was but - his claim to military genius was very short in comparison to other leaders of that time - though it safeguarded the future of his country.


Quote:
You counter with Napoleon et al but trying to suggest a correlation between large war/ country = remembered and small war/ country forgotten doesn’t take into account the countless skilled generals from major countries who fought large wars and are as forgotten as Yi.


Again, Brecher covered this, that is because bigger armies have more officers and many excellent officers are forgotten in the midsts of time, as are the failures. It takes someone special to be remembered, Montgomery is remembered for the right reasons, Haig is remembered for the wrong reasons.

Quote:
Mannerheim and the many others I mentioned that you purposely forgot are remembered in their own country and celebrated. They have international acclaim and volumes written about them in many different languages. However. you and Brecher's big revelation, that was so important for you to hijack a previously interesting thread, is that Napoleon has more brand recognition among people who know scarcely anything about history anyway. Wow, thanks for sharing.


Yes, they are celebrated in their own country, my grandmother is a Finn (I hate bringing that little tidbit up) and yes, they are acclaimed by military historians but again - the article is not about historians - it is about ESL teachers who are mostly wannabe war nerds, who do have a bit of knowledge but probably not that much - and then we have the Korean recruiter who is blinded by nationalism but it turns out his nationalism was justified in the genius of Yi. The article is about ignorance - not about knowledge. You should write an article - and let's see what kind of readership you get.

Quote:
Plus you have still yet to give a credible reason as to why the extent of figures longevity in the minds of the masses is dependent upon their possessing of a national mint.


Simply, big wars and big armies produce the most remembered historical figures - not everyone gets remembered but the main players do.


Simply, big wars and big armies produce the most remembered historical figures - not everyone gets remembered but the main players do.[/quote]

Kutuzov, commanded huge forces in a huge war. No one knows who he is. Why some are remembered and some are not is a result of more than just size.

As I said just because you were a soldier that has nothing to do with your ability to reason. The supply situation in the Vietnam war was heavily in favour of the American forces and their allies. South Vietnam was not subject to the same air raids that destroyed huge amounts of infrastructure in the North. Hardly 'uninterrupted'.

Also supply lines from Moscow? Might be a bit stretched during an offensive dont you think? Supply from the US, S Vietnam, Allies and bases in Allied countries combined with control of the sea ensured that the US were able to supply their forces with everything they needed. In terms of supplying troops on the front line, the US had fleets of helicopters and motorized vehicles. They were able to supply cut off and besieged forward bases during sustained attack for long periods of time.

Plus china, really? You want to compare the support that the US gave to S Vietnam with that of Mao to N Viet. As this debate continues the gaps in your knowledge grow larger. After the soviet-sino split China all but ended support to N Viet and funded the Khmer in Cambodia. They even went to war with each other and their proxy after the conclusion of the Vietnam War.

Also I never said that technology wins battles on its own. You cant just make up arguments. I do indeed believe that ships armed with better cannons than their enemy can be decisive, such as it was for Yi. Or that the superior arms of an army such as Kitchener at Omuradam are pretty decisive as well. Although as we both know incompetent generalship can negate those advantages such as at 칠천량 and Adwa.

Frankly though the battle hardened commanders of the N Viet forces are not enough to change the fact that Vietnam has never been a great power post Chinese occupation.

Please say something more about Frederick the great and the Seven years war. Those posts were entertaining. Your dismissal of the Russian army at Kunesdorf because it was outnumbered by the deaths on the Somme was a highlight.

Read up on the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war and the treaty of Gandamak. So much for the Afghan example.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I forgot to add 'most people' think of the British and American leaders because in your mind 'most people' are English speakers. Seriously 99% know Yi, because they are Koreans and they speak Korean. They dont know Nelson nearly as well because he is English and is completely separate from their history.

In Britain and America, figures from British and American history are recognized because they are from our history. You can expand it to Europe as well because its their history also.

We don't know Chinese figures because we don't speak Chinese. They have historically been so separate that we don't know about them despite their huge wars because of distance, language and our own self interest.

The supremacy of European/American figures is not to do with large wars, as there were far larger wars elsewhere. It is as a result of cultural domination such as books and Hollywood movies. I will give you this, more non-Europeans/Anglophones are more likely to be knowledgeable about a Corps commander like Patton thanks to a Hollywood movie than a history class.

As I said Euro-centrism is a far better example of this supremacy than the some strange correlation between the size of he conflict.

Also out of the 22,000 odd eslers in Korea you think a majority of them are all sitting around talking about war? We are the only people in this discussion on this board, what does that tell you, no one cares.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


Kutuzov, commanded huge forces in a huge war. No one knows who he is. Why some are remembered and some are not is a result of more than just size.


You are right, Kutuzov commanded huge forces in a huge war but isn't remembered - well, no more than Giap anyway. I have admitted that not every commander will get its due via the history books. Wavell and Slim are not remembered either - in the case of Slim - he was one of our best commanders in world war 2 - most people in his own country have never heard of him, don't ask me why.

Quote:
As I said just because you were a soldier that has nothing to do with your ability to reason. The supply situation in the Vietnam war was heavily in favour of the American forces and their allies. South Vietnam was not subject to the same air raids that destroyed huge amounts of infrastructure in the North. Hardly 'uninterrupted'.


Have you ever heard of 'The Ho Chi Minh Trail'? Most historians recognise the Ho Chi Minh Trail as a vital key to the North Vietnamese winning the war, I will quote one.

http://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/hochitrail.htm

In the end, the Ho Chi Minh Trail was a major factor in North Vietnam's triumph in the Vietnam War. The United States, unable to amount disabilitating losses on the enemy and its supply lines, withdrew all troops by 29 March 1973 in accordance with the Treaty of Paris. As a result, the North Vietnamese victory reunited Vietnam under a common banner of communism.


Nor could SEATO forces halt the supply lines from China and the Soviet Union into North Vietnam - they couldn't halt it in land they controlled.

So, there is no way the logistics system SEATO and the South had was superior.


Quote:
Also supply lines from Moscow? Might be a bit stretched during an offensive dont you think?


They obviously flew it into China.

Quote:
Supply from the US, S Vietnam, Allies and bases in Allied countries combined with control of the sea ensured that the US were able to supply their forces with everything they needed.


It was, but it was far more expensive, took far longer to get to the land forces - especially from the US and Australia. The Americans could have kept throwing money at it but what wasn't going to happen was they couldn't interrupt the North Vietnamese supply lines or logistical structure.

Quote:
In terms of supplying troops on the front line, the US had fleets of helicopters and motorized vehicles. They were able to supply cut off and besieged forward bases during sustained attack for long periods of time.


Helicopters were some help but proved inneffective in the end as the Viet Cong/NVA found ways to neutralise them. As did the motorized vehicles.

Quote:
Plus china, really? You want to compare the support that the US gave to S Vietnam with that of Mao to N Viet. As this debate continues the gaps in your knowledge grow larger. After the soviet-sino split China all but ended support to N Viet and funded the Khmer in Cambodia. They even went to war with each other and their proxy after the conclusion of the Vietnam War.


The Chinese pulled their troops out in 1970 but still supplied the North Vietnamese with arms, food, transport and armed them constantly right up until 1978. Despite the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese still let the Soviets supply the Vietnamese via their country - this information is all available online.

Quote:
Also I never said that technology wins battles on its own. You cant just make up arguments. I do indeed believe that ships armed with better cannons than their enemy can be decisive, such as it was for Yi. Or that the superior arms of an army such as Kitchener at Omuradam are pretty decisive as well. Although as we both know incompetent generalship can negate those advantages such as at 칠천량 and Adwa.


Technology, weaponary, numbers are all crucial in the hands of competence. Otherwise it is no help at all. In a jungle war, how better equipped the Americans were and how many men they had is moot because the North Vietnamese had a lot of men themselves.

Quote:
Frankly though the battle hardened commanders of the N Viet forces are not enough to change the fact that Vietnam has never been a great power post Chinese occupation.


Who says the North Vietnamese were a great power? However, in the jungles of Vietnam - they were more than a match for the Americans.

Quote:
Please say something more about Frederick the great and the Seven years war. Those posts were entertaining. Your dismissal of the Russian army at Kunesdorf because it was outnumbered by the deaths on the Somme was a highlight.


Yes, I will give you Frederick - he still fought the Austrians mainly though.

Quote:
Read up on the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war and the treaty of Gandamak. So much for the Afghan example.


And you read up on the third Afghan war - funny how nearly 100 years later - trying to maintain and police Afghanistan is a lesson that can never be learned by anyone.


Last edited by robbie_davies on Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:
I forgot to add 'most people' think of the British and American leaders because in your mind 'most people' are English speakers. Seriously 99% know Yi, because they are Koreans and they speak Korean. They dont know Nelson nearly as well because he is English and is completely separate from their history.


I have never ever said that at all, what you have written there is complete nonsense. I would say most people who know about Yi will be Korean - like most people who know Mannenheim will be Finnish. The military leaders who are known around the world are mainly leaders who conducted or were part of global campaigns and big wars.

Quote:
In Britain and America, figures from British and American history are recognized because they are from our history. You can expand it to Europe as well because its their history also.


Ask any Korean schoolkid about McArthur, they all know more or less who he is. My kids in my old public school did. The reason you can expand figures from British and American history is because it was the British and Americans who partook in the most global conflict, the countries most likely (even today) to take part in Geopolitics. Therefore, the major players from those countries and France are the most well known.

Quote:
We don't know Chinese figures because we don't speak Chinese. They have historically been so separate that we don't know about them despite their huge wars because of distance, language and our own self interest.


The internal wars of the Qing Empire didn't impact anyone except the Chinese (Boxer rebellion and Opium wars being the exception of course.) Lots of wars, lots of killing and really interesting but no-one outside of China who is a layman or less knows much about it.

Quote:
The supremacy of European/American figures is not to do with large wars, as there were far larger wars elsewhere.


Let me know of larger wars than world war 1 and 2 - where the European/American figures were the main players. Any global conflict worth talking about involves the United States, France or Great Britain.

Quote:
It is as a result of cultural domination such as books and Hollywood movies. I will give you this, more non-Europeans/Anglophones are more likely to be knowledgeable about a Corps commander like Patton thanks to a Hollywood movie than a history class.


The films and books are based on the deeds, the point made by Brecher was that if Yi was American or British - films about his great deeds would have been made and his legacy cemented amongst the wider public.

Quote:
As I said Euro-centrism is a far better example of this supremacy than the some strange correlation between the size of he conflict.


The main players of every global conflict have involved the UK, the US and the French.

Quote:
Also out of the 22,000 odd eslers in Korea you think a majority of them are all sitting around talking about war? We are the only people in this discussion on this board, what does that tell you, no one cares.


I think a lot of the male teachers I have met fancy themselves as a military expert of some sort yes, even if it is restricted to playing 'call of duty' on their playstation.


Last edited by robbie_davies on Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IA20xVTl-nEC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=supply+and+logistics
+us+forces+vietnam+war&source=bl&ots=
OBSIeRxT8O&sig=0optQx1bPk5IDOKHNcskSJYzTv8&h
l=en&sa=X&ei=vJHtUbrYL_
Ts0gWaw4CIAQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=
onepage&q=supply%20and%20logistics%20us%20forces
%20vietnam%20war&f=false

Very interesting book here called 'The Logistics of War - a historical perspective' Seems like the logistical problem regarding SEATO forces in Vietnam was the lack of decent ports in South Vietnam, two was the overburden of the supply chain on items that were sent in to keep up morale and luxury food items that were easily perishable which was a great burden on the supply chain. It is said that the logistics system in Vietnam wasn't designed for a long drawn out conflict and by the end of 1968, ammunition, petroleum and other vital items were starting to decrease in number and by the beginning of 1974. The Americans had ceased to supply the South Vietnamese forces which led to their ultimate defeat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International