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
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we can all agree that the ad writer, with 1952 Admiral Yi defeating the Japanese with Turtle Ships while storming the beaches of Incheon alongside MacArthur, is a blathering idiot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
It is a humourous article based on real events intertwined with the advert and why they are linked to each other.


Eh, based on the little that's written in that article, I'd be skeptical of anything he writes; he doesn't appear to have a very good grasp of the Civil War (also accurately described as the War of Northern Aggression).

Though since you report to have been there for the lock-in, maybe he left out a good deal of BS that 'KKK Dave' was shoveling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:

A bit much really, the recruiter was probably just trying to make his advert stand out a bit.

Maybe he was just trying to attract the sort of teacher who might be interested in Korea instead of the rent free housing.


Rolling Eyes

It is a humourous article based on real events intertwined with the advert and why they are linked to each other. (I was there), and why don't you google 'war nerd' and 'Gary Brecher' and you can see the gentleman concerned is a celebrated writer who has written and published 5 books.

I am sure Gary Brecher could have wrote 'Admiral Yi is a great admiral but will never get his due because he comes from a minor power' but then Charles Dickens could have wrote a few words for Oliver Twist 'Being poor and hungry is shit'.

As for the recruiter, I bet they have never heard of Nelson or DeRuyter, it is at best, nationalistic bombast based on very little knowledge, (as you can see with the incorrect dates on the job advert.)


I'm sorry I didn't realise it was meant to be funny.

He is wrong though, plenty of figures belonging to 'minor powers' or even to doomed causes made a mark on military history despite being overwhelmed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


I'm sorry I didn't realise it was meant to be funny.

He is wrong though, plenty of figures belonging to 'minor powers' or even to doomed causes made a mark on military history despite being overwhelmed.


It is OK, I understand humour is subjective and it is lacking in some people.

Right - so tell me these figures from 'minor powers' whom are historically feted and who people have heard of?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


I'm sorry I didn't realise it was meant to be funny.

He is wrong though, plenty of figures belonging to 'minor powers' or even to doomed causes made a mark on military history despite being overwhelmed.


It is OK, I understand humour is subjective and it is lacking in some people.

Right - so tell me these figures from 'minor powers' whom are historically feted and who people have heard of?


Indeed, most strikingly in that war nerd essay.

As a Brit surely Boudica would ring a bell. An initially successful uprising by the Icenii and later others, only to be crushed by the power of Rome.

George Washington, Ho chi minh and Nguyen Giap, Moshe Dayan, Mannerheim, Sitting Bull, Simon Bolivar, Frederick the Great.

Off the top of my head, I am sure others could add to that list.

Although when you say 'most people', are you referring to the general public?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


As a Brit surely Boudica would ring a bell. An initially successful uprising by the Icenii and later others, only to be crushed by the power of Rome.


Boadicea was a queen of a tribe, quite a powerful one in ancient Britain. Were the Icenii a 'minor power' I would say they were not though the area they controlled was quite small. They were powerful enough to lead an armed revolt against the Romans. How many Americans 'unless' they had an interest in the subject would know who Boadicea was?

Quote:
George Washington


Wasn't the military leader of a 'minor power' That is like saying Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are the military leaders of a 'minor power' when in fact they were/are revolutionaries/terrorists.

Quote:
Ho chi minh


Minor power? He had millions of men under arms and was armed by the Soviets and the Chinese - hardly.


Quote:
and Nguyen Giap


OK, this one I agree with, the French took a shock defeat there. Has the average man on the street who hasn't studied military history heard of Giap? Doubtful.


Quote:
Moshe Dayan


You must be joking, the Israelis were trained and armed by the Americans. Hardly the minnows even though they were fighting numerically superior forces - that would be like saying General Wavell in Libya was at a disdadvantage because he was fighting a numerically superior Italian force even though it was Wavell who held all the advantages.



Quote:
Mannerheim


Who has heard of him outside of Finland and probably Russia? You have and I have but I would say most history graduates unless they specialise in military history will have never have heard of him.

In fact, with Mannerheim, it is the same case as it is with Yi - every Korean knows about Yi just like every Finn knows who Mannerheim is but they are unknown outside of their national borders. Was Mannerheim a military genius? Yes, is he well known? No.

Quote:
Sitting Bull


A tribal chief.



Quote:
Simon Bolivar


Again, a revolutionary, why not stick General Grivas in there also.


Quote:
Frederick the Great.


Hardly

Quote:
Off the top of my head, I am sure others could add to that list.

Although when you say 'most people', are you referring to the general public?


Of course he was referring to the general public! If you ask a history graduate who is not a Finn about Mannerheim or ask them about Grivas or ask them about Ali La Pointe - no-one will have heard of any of them unless they had a special interest in the theatres of war they took part in.

The general population who are educated will know about (depending on the nationality of course) Montgomery, Napoleon, Rommel, Patton, Nelson, Schwartzkopf, Zhukov, Wellington, Custer, Haig, DeGaulle etc etc - the one thing they all had in common was that they were military leaders of major powers in major conflicts. The bigger the army and the bigger the war, the longer they linger in the annals of history. That is all Gary Brecher was trying to say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
robbie_davies wrote:
It is a humourous article based on real events intertwined with the advert and why they are linked to each other.


Eh, based on the little that's written in that article, I'd be skeptical of anything he writes; he doesn't appear to have a very good grasp of the Civil War (also accurately described as the War of Northern Aggression).

Though since you report to have been there for the lock-in, maybe he left out a good deal of BS that 'KKK Dave' was shoveling.


Mate, 'KKK Dave' was a moron.

Also, you could argue the toss all things 'civil war' with Brecher but you would probably lose pal. Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


As a Brit surely Boudica would ring a bell. An initially successful uprising by the Icenii and later others, only to be crushed by the power of Rome.


Boadicea was a queen of a tribe, quite a powerful one in ancient Britain. Were the Icenii a 'minor power' I would say they were not though the area they controlled was quite small. They were powerful enough to lead an armed revolt against the Romans.

Quote:
George Washington


Wasn't the military of a 'minor power' That is like saying Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are the military leaders of a 'minor power' when in fact they were/are revolutionaries/terrorists.

Quote:
Ho chi minh


Minor power? He had millions of men under arms and was armed by the Soviets and the Chinese - hardly.


Quote:
and Nguyen Giap


OK, this one I agree with, the French took a shock defeat there. Has the average man on the street who hasn't studied military history heard of Giap? Doubtful.


Quote:
Moshe Dayan


You must be joking, the Israelis were trained and armed by the Americans. Hardly the minnows even though they were fighting numerically superior forces - that would be like saying General Wavell in Libya was at a disdadvantage because he was fighting a numerically superior Italian force even though it was Wavell who held all the advantages.



Quote:
Mannerheim


Who has heard of him outside of Finland and probably Russia? You have and I have but I would say most history graduates unless they specialise in military history will have never have heard of him.



Quote:
Sitting Bull


A tribal chief.



Quote:
Simon Bolivar


Again, a revolutionary, why not stick General Grivas in there also.


Quote:
Frederick the Great.


Hardly

Quote:
Off the top of my head, I am sure others could add to that list.

Although when you say 'most people', are you referring to the general public?


Of course he was referring to the general public! If you ask a history graduate who is not a Finn about Mannerheim or ask them about Grivas or ask them about Ali La Pointe - no-one will have heard of any of them unless they had a special interest in the theatres of war they took part in.

The general population who are educated will know about (depending on the nationality of course) Montgomery, Rommel, Patton, Nelson, Schwartzkopf, Zhukov, Wellington, Custer, Haig etc etc - the one thing they all had in common was that they were military leaders of major powers in major conflicts. The bigger the army and the bigger the war, the longer they linger in the annals of history. That is all Gary Brecher was trying to say.


The extent of historical ignorance is significant, even if they recognised the names I doubt they could tell you much more. This is doubly true once you go outside the country in which they are famous, how many Americans know about Nelson?

Most Brits and certainly most non-Brits wouldn't have a clue about as significant a figure as Wellington let alone Cromwell or Marlborough.

So what exactly is the point? Most people don't know much about historical figures full stop. Why? Because it is not useful information for 99% of people, it has nothing to do with the length of the war, otherwise figures from the thirty years war would be more memorable.

I would say that in Korea knowledge about Yi is far greater than that about Patton or Washington. Just as in America Lee, Grant and Eisenhower would be more recognisable.

Also why are you dismissing revolutionaries and Tribal leaders? They fought wars as lesser powers and they scored victories that are feted. The sioux and the icenii were vastly outmatched by the power of their opponents and yet they won victories. They are remembered and celebrated.

North Vietnam even with Soviet and Chinese support was vastly inferior on paper to the most advanced military power on the planet.

The US at the time of the revolution was very much a minor power in comparison to the British Empire. Granted it was fighting all of Europe and a global war at the same time, but the point still stands.

Frederick the Great was the king of a small European state who went to war with Austria, Russia and France.

Israel at the time of the Six Days war was dwarfed militarily by the combined forces of their Arab opponents. Whilst French and American military technology was very good the soviet supplied Arab forces were more than a match.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


The extent of historical ignorance is significant, even if they recognised the names I doubt they could tell you much more. This is doubly true once you go outside the country in which they are famous, how many Americans know about Nelson?


I would say a fair amount, and a lot more would know about Napoleon. Would that be a fair comment?

Quote:
Most Brits and certainly most non-Brits wouldn't have a clue about as significant a figure as Wellington let alone Cromwell or Marlborough.


The comparison has to be realtive, but, I think it is fair to say that there are war leaders that transcend history.

Quote:
So what exactly is the point? Most people don't know much about historical figures full stop. Why? Because it is not useful information for 99% of people, it has nothing to do with the length of the war, otherwise figures from the thirty years war would be more memorable.


Again, it is all relative, how many historians would know about Mannerheim? But most know about Rommel. This is the point that was being made, Mannerheim was as much as a genius as Rommel but one is far more known than the other. One was in charge of a force that was bigger and better armed and one was not.

Quote:
I would say that in Korea knowledge about Yi is far greater than that about Patton or Washington. Just as in America Lee, Grant and Eisenhower would be more recognisable.


In Korea, I am sure Yi is the historical figure most people have heard of but I doubt that Koreans with a decent grasp of knowledge don't know who Patton is.

Quote:
Also why are you dismissing revolutionaries and Tribal leaders?


Because we are talking about 'minor powers' (in relation) to regional, major or super powers. All due respect to the military leaders of those armed groups and militias, they are outside that sphere - it is another subject entirely. Military geniuses? Yes, military leaders of a 'minor power'? No.


Quote:
They fought wars as lesser powers and they scored victories that are feted. The sioux and the icenii were vastly outmatched by the power of their opponents and yet they won victories. They are remembered and celebrated.


Still not classed as a minor power, EOKA, Al Qaeda nor the IRA are classed as such. I don't make the rules unfortunately. Crying or Very sad

Quote:
North Vietnam even with Soviet and Chinese support was vastly inferior on paper to the most advanced military power on the planet.


But they were still a mighty military force. Manned in the millions, had air power, had a navy.

Quote:
The US at the time of the revolution was very much a minor power in comparison to the British Empire. Granted it was fighting all of Europe and a global war at the same time, but the point still stands.


But it wasn't a minor power until the British (who were the colonists) lost the war and recognised the independence of the nation. That would be like saying the various South American armies under San Martin and Boliviar who were fighting the Spanish were 'minor powers' when in fact they were fighting the Spanish to have their independence recognised. It was only when the colonists were defeated that the nation was recognised by the superior power.

Quote:
Frederick the Great was the king of a small European state who went to war with Austria, Russia and France.


It was mostly Austria though.

Quote:
Israel at the time of the Six Days war was dwarfed militarily by the combined forces of their Arab opponents. Whilst French and American military technology was very good the soviet supplied Arab forces were more than a match.


The combined Arab forces were rubbish, inferior armed, inferior led, crap logistics and was an easy victory, 1948 and Ben Gurion - you might have had a point there. Again - because a nation has more soldiers, doesn't mean the other side has a disadvantage and we can look at the Libya campaign under Wavell, The Falklands war, The first Gulf war.

Also, it is generally accepted that the Israelis had the superior weaponary over the Arab coalition in the six day war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


The extent of historical ignorance is significant, even if they recognised the names I doubt they could tell you much more. This is doubly true once you go outside the country in which they are famous, how many Americans know about Nelson?


I would say a fair amount, and a lot more would know about Napoleon. Would that be a fair comment?

Quote:
Most Brits and certainly most non-Brits wouldn't have a clue about as significant a figure as Wellington let alone Cromwell or Marlborough.


The comparison has to be realtive, but, I think it is fair to say that there are war leaders that transcend history.

Quote:
So what exactly is the point? Most people don't know much about historical figures full stop. Why? Because it is not useful information for 99% of people, it has nothing to do with the length of the war, otherwise figures from the thirty years war would be more memorable.


Again, it is all relative, how many historians would know about Mannerheim? But most know about Rommel. This is the point that was being made, Mannerheim was as much as a genius as Rommel but one is far more known than the other. One was in charge of a force that was bigger and better armed and one was not.

Quote:
I would say that in Korea knowledge about Yi is far greater than that about Patton or Washington. Just as in America Lee, Grant and Eisenhower would be more recognisable.


In Korea, I am sure Yi is the historical figure most people have heard of but I doubt that Koreans with a decent grasp of knowledge don't know who Patton is.

Quote:
Also why are you dismissing revolutionaries and Tribal leaders?


Because we are talking about 'minor powers' (in relation) to regional, major or super powers. All due respect to the military leaders of those armed groups and militias, they are outside that sphere - it is another subject entirely. Military geniuses? Yes, military leaders of a 'minor power'? No.


Quote:
They fought wars as lesser powers and they scored victories that are feted. The sioux and the icenii were vastly outmatched by the power of their opponents and yet they won victories. They are remembered and celebrated.


Still not classed as a minor power, EOKA, Al Qaeda nor the IRA are classed as such. I don't make the rules unfortunately. Crying or Very sad

Quote:
North Vietnam even with Soviet and Chinese support was vastly inferior on paper to the most advanced military power on the planet.


But they were still a mighty military force. Manned in the millions, had air power, had a navy.

Quote:
The US at the time of the revolution was very much a minor power in comparison to the British Empire. Granted it was fighting all of Europe and a global war at the same time, but the point still stands.


But it wasn't a minor power until the British (who were the colonists) lost the war and recognised the independence of the nation. That would be like saying the various South American armies under San Martin and Boliviar who were fighting the Spanish were 'minor powers' when in fact they were fighting the Spanish to have their independence recognised. It was only when the colonists were defeated that the nation was recognised by the superior power.

Quote:
Frederick the Great was the king of a small European state who went to war with Austria, Russia and France.


It was mostly Austria though.

Quote:
Israel at the time of the Six Days war was dwarfed militarily by the combined forces of their Arab opponents. Whilst French and American military technology was very good the soviet supplied Arab forces were more than a match.


The combined Arab forces were rubbish, inferior armed, inferior led, crap logistics and was an easy victory, 1948 and Ben Gurion - you might have had a point there. Again - because a nation has more soldiers, doesn't mean the other side has a disadvantage and we can look at the Libya campaign under Wavell, The Falklands war, The first Gulf war.

Also, it is generally accepted that the Israelis had the superior weaponary over the Arab coalition in the six day war.


You are making the rules by choosing to dismiss examples that go against what you are saying. You are defining 'minor power' as being a state whose power is weaker than that of a larger state. Why exactly? For the argument being made there is no reason to limit ourselves like that.

Those figures who I mentioned fought wars against larger enemies and won significant enough victories to be remembered through the ages. Thereby making yours and Brecher's argument, that only the powerful are remembered, patently incorrect.

You are also ignoring the fact that whether someone is remembered or not is largely down to their nationality, not the size of the war/country. Figures that we know as Brits would be unknown to Koreans in the same way as Yi are unknown to Brits.

How many Chinese military leaders are remembered? China is a major power and always has been, yet it suffers from the same problem. Obviously the power of a state has no bearing on whether their figures will be known globally.

Also your definition of power is frankly baffling. You state that North Vietnam was powerful because they had millions of men, airforce and navy. Yes but relative to the US navy and airforce and US/ROK/AUS/ARVN army it was at least on paper far weaker.

The relative power of each force in the context of each conflict has to be calculated relatively, there is no objective standard.

Furthermore, the sioux and Icenii were nations and in the case of the icenii a semi-autonomous kingdom. Bolivar and Washington fought wars that created new states by harnessing nationalism from a people who obviously saw themselves as being distinct from their enemy.

Frederick fought large Russian and French forces. It is also arguable that it was the Russian withdrawal from the effort against Prussia that saved it.

The Arabs were not crap, they proved that in 1973. Furthermore, in 1948 the Egyptian and Jordanian forces had the limited goals of taking Gaza and the West Bank to satisfy their territorial ambitions, so actually it is not a good example.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:

You are making the rules by choosing to dismiss examples that go against what you are saying. You are defining 'minor power' as being a state whose power is weaker than that of a larger state. Why exactly? For the argument being made there is no reason to limit ourselves like that.


Were we, or were we not discussing 'minor powers'? Minor powers are not armed militias or partake in guerilla warfare as the guerillas - we are talking about the armed forces of established nations. Now if you want talk about military leaders of guerilla forces and militias then it is a different subject. Brecher was saying that Yi was not as celebrated as Nelson because he was a military leader of a smaller nation (or a minor power) Just like Manneheim is not as well know as Rommel. Now - you can't compare Rommel to General Grivas.


Quote:

Those figures who I mentioned fought wars against larger enemies and won significant enough victories to be remembered through the ages. Thereby making yours and Brecher's argument, that only the powerful are remembered, patently incorrect.


Because Brecher clearly stated that he was talking about nation states, the reason the Finns remember Mannenheim and the Koreans remember Yi is for the genius of those particular men in regards the defence of their country and that they are not known anywhere else. However, the genius of Patton, Montgomery and Napoleon are known worldwide. There is a reason - because they were the military leaders of world powers.

Quote:
You are also ignoring the fact that whether someone is remembered or not is largely down to their nationality, not the size of the war/country. Figures that we know as Brits would be unknown to Koreans in the same way as Yi are unknown to Brits.


You mean like Napoleon - who doesn't know about him? Do you have to be French to know who he is? Or have to be conversant with that era?

Quote:
How many Chinese military leaders are remembered? China is a major power and always has been, yet it suffers from the same problem. Obviously the power of a state has no bearing on whether their figures will be known globally.


Chairman Mao? No-one has ever heard of him have they?

Quote:
Also your definition of power is frankly baffling. You state that North Vietnam was powerful because they had millions of men, airforce and navy. Yes but relative to the US navy and airforce and US/ROK/AUS/ARVN army it was at least on paper far weaker.


Weaker than the combined forces of SEATO but still a powerful enemy, a battle hardened army, experienced leaders, armed by the Chinese and the Soviets. Millions of men under arms. That wasn't a weak military - unlike the Danish military that succumbed to the Nazi war machine in 1940 inside a day by telephone because the Nazi's had Panzer tanks and the Danes had pushbikes.

Quote:
The relative power of each force in the context of each conflict has to be calculated relatively, there is no objective standard.


Indeed.

Quote:
Furthermore, the sioux and Icenii were nations and in the case of the icenii a semi-autonomous kingdom. Bolivar and Washington fought wars that created new states by harnessing nationalism from a people who obviously saw themselves as being distinct from their enemy.


But they weren't new states at the time - they were fighting for nationhood - now, you can't change the goalposts because it suits your argument - Brecher was talking about nation states. He knows that there are brilliant military minds who were part of militias fighting for independence. But he specifically stated smaller nations or minor powers, go back and read the article. That you decide to ignore the part where he was talking about smaller nations instead of armed militias doesn't mean you start bringing them in when you conceded that the discussion was going to be about the military of 'minor powers' now if you want to talk about guerilla leaders, revolutionaries and terrorists - then it is another thread.

Quote:
Frederick fought large Russian and French forces. It is also arguable that it was the Russian withdrawal from the effort against Prussia that saved it.


He fought mainly the Austrians - did he not?

Quote:
The Arabs were not crap, they proved that in 1973.


We were talking about 1967 - and yes they were awful, badly led, terrible logistics and had inferior weaponary. Here is a clue is in the title - the war lasted six days.

Quote:
Furthermore, in 1948 the Egyptian and Jordanian forces had the limited goals of taking Gaza and the West Bank to satisfy their territorial ambitions, so actually it is not a good example.


It is a good example because the Israelis under Ben Gurion won against the odds, that was a bigger shock than 1967.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:

You are making the rules by choosing to dismiss examples that go against what you are saying. You are defining 'minor power' as being a state whose power is weaker than that of a larger state. Why exactly? For the argument being made there is no reason to limit ourselves like that.


Were we, or were we not discussing 'minor powers'? Minor powers are not armed militias or partake in guerilla warfare as the guerillas - we are talking about the armed forces of established nations. Now if you want talk about military leaders of guerilla forces and militias then it is a different subject. Brecher was saying that Yi was not as celebrated as Nelson because he was a military leader of a smaller nation (or a minor power) Just like Manneheim is not as well know as Rommel. Now - you can't compare Rommel to General Grivas.


Quote:

Those figures who I mentioned fought wars against larger enemies and won significant enough victories to be remembered through the ages. Thereby making yours and Brecher's argument, that only the powerful are remembered, patently incorrect.


Because Brecher clearly stated that he was talking about nation states, the reason the Finns remember Mannenheim and the Koreans remember Yi is for the genius of those particular men in regards the defence of their country and that they are not known anywhere else. However, the genius of Patton, Montgomery and Napoleon are known worldwide. There is a reason - because they were the military leaders of world powers.

Quote:
You are also ignoring the fact that whether someone is remembered or not is largely down to their nationality, not the size of the war/country. Figures that we know as Brits would be unknown to Koreans in the same way as Yi are unknown to Brits.


You mean like Napoleon - who doesn't know about him? Do you have to be French to know who he is? Or have to be conversant with that era?

Quote:
How many Chinese military leaders are remembered? China is a major power and always has been, yet it suffers from the same problem. Obviously the power of a state has no bearing on whether their figures will be known globally.


Chairman Mao? No-one has ever heard of him have they?

Quote:
Also your definition of power is frankly baffling. You state that North Vietnam was powerful because they had millions of men, airforce and navy. Yes but relative to the US navy and airforce and US/ROK/AUS/ARVN army it was at least on paper far weaker.


Weaker than the combined forces of SEATO but still a powerful enemy, a battle hardened army, experienced leaders, armed by the Chinese and the Soviets. Millions of men under arms. That wasn't a weak military - unlike the Danish military that succumbed to the Nazi war machine in 1940 inside a day by telephone because the Nazi's had Panzer tanks and the Danes had pushbikes.

Quote:
The relative power of each force in the context of each conflict has to be calculated relatively, there is no objective standard.


Indeed.

Quote:
Furthermore, the sioux and Icenii were nations and in the case of the icenii a semi-autonomous kingdom. Bolivar and Washington fought wars that created new states by harnessing nationalism from a people who obviously saw themselves as being distinct from their enemy.


But they weren't new states at the time - they were fighting for nationhood - now, you can't change the goalposts because it suits your argument - Brecher was talking about nation states. He knows that there are brilliant military minds who were part of militias fighting for independence. But he specifically stated smaller nations or minor powers, go back and read the article. That you decide to ignore the part where he was talking about smaller nations instead of armed militias doesn't mean you start bringing them in when you conceded that the discussion was going to be about the military of 'minor powers' now if you want to talk about guerilla leaders, revolutionaries and terrorists - then it is another thread.

Quote:
Frederick fought large Russian and French forces. It is also arguable that it was the Russian withdrawal from the effort against Prussia that saved it.


He fought mainly the Austrians - did he not?

Quote:
The Arabs were not crap, they proved that in 1973.


We were talking about 1967 - and yes they were awful, badly led, terrible logistics and had inferior weaponary. Here is a clue is in the title - the war lasted six days.

Quote:
Furthermore, in 1948 the Egyptian and Jordanian forces had the limited goals of taking Gaza and the West Bank to satisfy their territorial ambitions, so actually it is not a good example.


It is a good example because the Israelis under Ben Gurion won against the odds, that was a bigger shock than 1967.


So his point is that heroes from small countries dont get remembered because they are small in comparison to the bigger nations. Despite the fact that military leaders from smaller nations have won great victories that played a pivotal role in their nations history. So much so that they are remembered and celebrated by experts and the interested not only in their own country but internationally.

Why do they have to be established nations if the point is how well a figure is remembered? If you are trying to say that Yi is not remembered because he from a small nation then how come a military figure from Vietnam, Sweden and Venezuela are all remembered. Also how come figures from powerful nations are forgotten Kutuzov, Marlborough and Scipio are hardly deep in the consciousness of the average joe.

Also why is recognition by the general public the standard? Among experts and the interested figures such as De Ruyter and Mannerheim are well known. Among the public at large they may recognize the name mao (though mainly for politics) and Napoleon, but they couldn't tell you anything more. The same is true for all aspects of history. So yeah not a lot of average joes will know Yi, however, not a lot of people will know Cromwell. That and the whole thing is so contingent on nationality anyway that the whole point because rather meaningless,no?

In trying to defend the argument you have had to make an equivalence between the Sioux, Bolivar and the 13 colonies with that of the IRA and ETA.

North Vietnam was much weaker. America could fly missions against Hanoi with impunity. How many sorties did North Vietnam make on the US.
They were not outclassed in the same way the Danes were, but again that is another invented condition. They were smaller and weaker than their enemies, yet they won and people like Nguyen Giap are remembered.

Frederick fought the Austrians, French and Russians. Are you suggesting that the French and Russians didn't take part?

The six days war was over in two thanks to the complete destruction of their enemies airforce. I would say that American tech was better than soviet, but not the extent that MiGs and T series tanks were useless. The important fact is that Israel was smaller and outgunned and yet through brillant military planning won a famous victory. Yom Kippur showed that the Israelis had to be at their best to beat the arab forces.

Also in 1948 there were already agreements and an understanding in place that Israel would not be driven into the sea. Certainly on the Jordanian side anyway. It was a land grab.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


So his point is that heroes from small countries dont get remembered because they are small in comparison to the bigger nations. Despite the fact that military leaders from smaller nations have won great victories that played a pivotal role in their nations history. So much so that they are remembered and celebrated by experts and the interested not only in their own country but internationally.


Yes, that is what he is saying, and he is saying that it is unjust that it is so.
He made it quite clear he was talking about the general populace (ESL teachers) and not 'experts' Of course, experts have heard of Mannerheim and Giap - two men who were military geniuses. The general populace has heard of Napoleon and Patton. Point proven.



Quote:
Why do they have to be established nations if the point is how well a figure is remembered? If you are trying to say that Yi is not remembered because he from a small nation then how come a military figure from Vietnam, Sweden and Venezuela are all remembered. Also how come figures from powerful nations are forgotten Kutuzov, Marlborough and Scipio are hardly deep in the consciousness of the average joe.


Because we were talking about the military of 'minor powers' and with all due respect, Washington, Bolivar, San Martin were not leaders of militaries of 'minor nations' they were revolutionaries of fledgling idea of a nation that took shape on the defeat of the colonial ruler - like it did with the United States in 1783.


The leading military figure of Venezuela is not - that is the point, he is seen as a liberator and national figure of a few countries around the region such as.. Bolivia - who they named their country after - see what I am getting at here? Venezuela as a nation did not exist at the time - Boliviar was fighting for a pan-American state free of the Spanish. Yi is a symbol of Korean national conciousness and pride, you could argue so is George Washington of the nation it eventually became, but the country that was recognised in 1783 is virtually unrecogniseable from the nation it is today, Washington did not fight the British so he could annex Alaska, Hawaii, California, Arizona etc.


Quote:
Also why is recognition by the general public the standard? Among experts and the interested figures such as De Ruyter and Mannerheim are well known. Among the public at large they may recognize the name mao (though mainly for politics) and Napoleon, but they couldn't tell you anything more. The same is true for all aspects of history. So yeah not a lot of average joes will know Yi, however, not a lot of people will know Cromwell. That and the whole thing is so contingent on nationality anyway that the whole point because rather meaningless,no?


It is what the article is talking about, it is talking about ESL teachers and why this advert was wrote up, lots of ESL types fancy themselves as experts on all thing military - even when they are not. That advert was written for a particular teacher in mind, who might know something about Yi and Korea's great naval history. I am sure Brecher - I know - Brecher knows that experts in the field know that Mannenheim and Giap are revered - but they are unknown compared to Napoleon.

Quote:
In trying to defend the argument you have had to make an equivalence between the Sioux, Bolivar and the 13 colonies with that of the IRA and ETA.



Yes, one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, you know that. The first battle of fallujah was military genius defined - but Al Qaeda are seen as terrorists by a lot of people. The IRA had no more than 150 active service members that bogged down a 10000 strong army in Northern Ireland. You might not like them but military geniuses - they were.

Quote:
North Vietnam was much weaker. America could fly missions against Hanoi with impunity. How many sorties did North Vietnam make on the US.
They were not outclassed in the same way the Danes were, but again that is another invented condition. They were smaller and weaker than their enemies, yet they won and people like Nguyen Giap are remembered.


They were weaker but they were not weak, it is really simple to figure out and I am sorry that you are not getting the gist. The North Vietnamese forces had the more battle hardened soldiers, had experienced generals who knew the terrain, had excellent supply lines, had support of the local people - all of which contributed to victory. It is easy to compare one military to another based on weaponary only and say 'Oh yes, that military is weaker than another' but there is a lot more to it than that.

Quote:
Frederick fought the Austrians, French and Russians. Are you suggesting that the French and Russians didn't take part?


No, I am suggesting Frederick fought mainly the Austrians, am I wrong there?

Quote:
The six days war was over in two thanks to the complete destruction of their enemies airforce. I would say that American tech was better than soviet, but not the extent that MiGs and T series tanks were useless. The important fact is that Israel was smaller and outgunned and yet through brillant military planning won a famous victory. Yom Kippur showed that the Israelis had to be at their best to beat the arab forces.


Ah right, because before, you claimed that the Soviet weaponary was 'more than a match' good to see you read up on it. The Migs and the T series tanks weren't useless but the men using them and the leadership were. The same weapons were being used in the jungles of Vietnam and guess what the difference was? The men and the military leadership. Weapons don't make an army effective - they are a great aid but if the manpower is useless then it doesn't matter all that much.

1973, the Arab coalition learned from their mistakes of 1967 and still couldn't gain victory over the Israelis.

Quote:
Also in 1948 there were already agreements and an understanding in place that Israel would not be driven into the sea. Certainly on the Jordanian side anyway. It was a land grab.


Israel won against the odds? Yes or no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


So his point is that heroes from small countries dont get remembered because they are small in comparison to the bigger nations. Despite the fact that military leaders from smaller nations have won great victories that played a pivotal role in their nations history. So much so that they are remembered and celebrated by experts and the interested not only in their own country but internationally.


Yes, that is what he is saying, and he is saying that it is unjust that it is so.
He made it quite clear he was talking about the general populace and not 'experts' Of course, experts have heard of Mannerheim and Giap - two men who were military geniuses. The general populace has heard of Napoleon and Patton. Point proven.



Quote:
Why do they have to be established nations if the point is how well a figure is remembered? If you are trying to say that Yi is not remembered because he from a small nation then how come a military figure from Vietnam, Sweden and Venezuela are all remembered. Also how come figures from powerful nations are forgotten Kutuzov, Marlborough and Scipio are hardly deep in the consciousness of the average joe.


Because we were talking about the military of 'minor powers' and with all due respect, Washington, Bolivar, San Martin were not leaders of militaries of 'minor nations' they were revolutionaries of fledgling idea of a nation that took shape on the defeat of the colonial ruler - like it did with the United States in 1783.


The leading military figure of Venezuela is not - that is the point, he is seen as a liberator and national figure of a few countries around the region such as.. Bolivia - who they named their country after - see what I am getting at here? Venezuela as a nation did not exist at the time - Boliviar was fighting for a pan-American state free of the Spanish. Yi is a symbol of Korean national conciousness and pride, you could argue so is George Washington of the nation it eventually became, but the country that was recognised in 1783 is virtually unrecogniseable from the nation it is today, Washington did not fight the British so he could annex Alaska, Hawaii, California, Arizona etc.


Quote:
Also why is recognition by the general public the standard? Among experts and the interested figures such as De Ruyter and Mannerheim are well known. Among the public at large they may recognize the name mao (though mainly for politics) and Napoleon, but they couldn't tell you anything more. The same is true for all aspects of history. So yeah not a lot of average joes will know Yi, however, not a lot of people will know Cromwell. That and the whole thing is so contingent on nationality anyway that the whole point because rather meaningless,no?


It is what the article is talking about, it is talking about ESL teachers and why this advert was wrote up, lots of ESL types fancy themselves as experts on all thing military - even when they are not. That advert was written for a particular teacher in mind, who might know something about Yi and Korea's great naval history. I am sure Brecher - I know - Brecher knows that experts in the field know that Mannenheim and Giap are revered - but they are unknown compared to Napoleon.

Quote:
In trying to defend the argument you have had to make an equivalence between the Sioux, Bolivar and the 13 colonies with that of the IRA and ETA.



Yes, one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, you know that. The first battle of fallujah was military genius defined - but Al Qaeda are seen as terrorists by a lot of people. The IRA had no more than 150 active service members that bogged down a 10000 strong army in Northern Ireland. You might not like them but military geniuses - they were.

Quote:
North Vietnam was much weaker. America could fly missions against Hanoi with impunity. How many sorties did North Vietnam make on the US.
They were not outclassed in the same way the Danes were, but again that is another invented condition. They were smaller and weaker than their enemies, yet they won and people like Nguyen Giap are remembered.


They were weaker but they were not weak, it is really simple to figure out and I am sorry that you are not getting the gist. The North Vietnamese forces had the more battle hardened soldiers, had experienced generals who knew the terrain, had excellent supply lines, had support of the local people - all of which contributed to victory. It is easy to compare one military to another based on weaponary only and say 'Oh yes, that military is weaker than another' but there is a lot more to it than that.

Quote:
Frederick fought the Austrians, French and Russians. Are you suggesting that the French and Russians didn't take part?


No, I am suggesting Frederick fought mainly the Austrians, am I wrong there?

Quote:
The six days war was over in two thanks to the complete destruction of their enemies airforce. I would say that American tech was better than soviet, but not the extent that MiGs and T series tanks were useless. The important fact is that Israel was smaller and outgunned and yet through brillant military planning won a famous victory. Yom Kippur showed that the Israelis had to be at their best to beat the arab forces.


Ah right, because before, you claimed that the Soviet weaponary was 'more than a match' good to see you read up on it. The Migs and the T series tanks weren't useless but the men using them and the leadership were. The same weapons were being used in the jungles of Vietnam and guess what the difference was? The men and the military leadership. Weapons don't make an army effective - they are a great aid but if the manpower is useless then it doesn't matter all that much.

1973, the Arab coalition learned from their mistakes of 1967 and still couldn't gain victory over the Israelis.

Quote:
Also in 1948 there were already agreements and an understanding in place that Israel would not be driven into the sea. Certainly on the Jordanian side anyway. It was a land grab.


Israel won against the odds? Yes or no?


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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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' as did the various guerilla and revolutionary armies.

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 now 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 and French weaponary in Vietnam and Angola. So it was the men and the leadership themselves that were terrible - 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.
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 6 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