World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

You don't have him as your top guy, I don't have him as my top guy. Guess he's not in the conversation for top guy. Like I said above. Top tier not #1 though.

Is the guy you guess is #1 also the guy you put at #1?

Yes he is the guy I have at #1. The main point I am making about the military guys is there are so many varying opinions about who is the best. So someone may take a guy really high or really low and the pick be ranked the exact opposite. How do you acurrately compare a guy who fought with spears to a guy who fought with muskets to a guy who fights with tanks? Really totally different things. Which is why I think we are going to see some really different lists for this category.

So let me get this straight. Everyone but Big Rocks thinks Napoleon isn't #1, including you (and he's not even 2 for you). So if we're a hair short of unanimously thinking Nap isn't #1, why would you argue when people say he's not in the conversation about #1? Clearly he is not. And I know there's a vast difference, but there is in every single category. We're talking how many thousands of years difference? I understand that part, but I don't understand is you "strongly disagreeing" with Nappy not being in the conversation for #1 when you yourself have him at 3! And I really don't understand where snobbery comes in, especially with the very strong consensus.

Why is this hard to understand? Nap isn't my #1 either, but he's in the top tier. Sort of like Andre Johnson, he's not my #1 WR but a legitimate case can be made and he is in the top tier.Oh, and the guy with the tanks will kick the ### of the guy with a spear.

 

[Ozymandias]

Some reflections on Newton vs Jesus vs Mohammed vs Shakespeare. Newton was an astonishingly brilliant mind, and I believe the #1 scientist. But if he hadn't come along, someone would have come up with his theories, probably within the next 50 years. Copernicus preceded him, Kepler was almost contemporaneous, and many others were also involved. Newton simply got there first; an astounding achievement, but someone would have got there very soon.

Jesus, Mohammed and Shakespeare are unique. No one would have done what they did, had they not done so. Which is why I would place all three of them above Newton for #1 overall.

 

[AcerFC]

2 quick thoughts from a noob in here

1. This is not taking anything away from Newton, as the pick was great. However, in the writeup it said that there was no science before Newton. Some early civilizations in Central And South America who would disagree

2. There is so much arguing over trivial things up in here. Is this how all the drafts go. I am sure that my picks will be ripped because I am going to go with who I want more than think about ADP. If MK wanted Sun Tzu who cares when he takes him. It was clear it wasnt making it back to him. Why dont we wait to see how the rest of his draft goes before killing him. People would have gone nuts if Larry Fitz was taken over LT at pick 1 last year. How would that have worked out for Team 1

 

[Ozymandias]

Hi everybody. I was busy calculating totals in the other thread (done, BTW) so I will update now. Couple of thoughts:1. Newton is my #1 scientist, even over Einstein. I understand it's a debatable point. But this guy's accomplishments are so incredible they defy description.2. Bonaparte is a reach, sorry. Not a huge reach, because it probably won't hurt you in the long run, but there are better guys out there for military. (BTW, I think he's also a legitimate top ten leader as well.) Napoleon gambled too much, and it cost him. Like Ozy says, there are a few guys I would take in front of him. However, Sun Tzu is NOT one of these. Just saying.

Back to the military. Before the draft started, Tim posted this:"The greatest military leaders/generals in history. Miltary theorists/writers would also be acceptable here.".And I posted this:"As a judge for "Military", if you wish to know what I will be looking for, here is the following:(Not necessarily in order of importance)Strategic grasp and development; tactical leadership in battle; organizational talent; training and development; consistency over a long period of time; winning battles and wars; wise use of resources; wise use of terrain; application of force and mobility, military theory, use of opportunity."The problem with Sun Tzu is that he was brilliant in military theory, but we have no real evidence of his having been more than an armchair general. He may have been; or he may have been merely an incredibly astute observer. We have no evidence of his winning battles and wars. Because his grasp of military theory is so good, he deserves to be ranked very highly; but not, in my opinion, to be the greatest military leader of all time.There is another military theorist whose works are classic, and is still studied today; but his performance on the battlefield did not bring about any particular distinction. That is the problem with Sun Tzu; we simply do not know.

 

[FUBAR]

2 quick thoughts from a noob in here1. This is not taking anything away from Newton, as the pick was great. However, in the writeup it said that there was no science before Newton. Some early civilizations in Central And South America who would disagree2. There is so much arguing over trivial things up in here. Is this how all the drafts go. I am sure that my picks will be ripped because I am going to go with who I want more than think about ADP. If MK wanted Sun Tzu who cares when he takes him. It was clear it wasnt making it back to him. Why dont we wait to see how the rest of his draft goes before killing him. People would have gone nuts if Larry Fitz was taken over LT at pick 1 last year. How would that have worked out for Team 1

1. good point2. That's kind of the point of these drafts I think. I had never done any of these until the American version but I had read some of the music, cereal, or other drafts and they're just meant to entertain and to some degree, inform. The FF versions aren't good comparisons because we can't really "know" who won these. Often in FF the best draft doesn't win the league because there's luck and the future is involved. I feel pretty safe in saying we know what Napoleon and Sun Tzu will do in the 2009 season. (although the same may not be said for Jesus)

 

[AcerFC]

2 quick thoughts from a noob in here1. This is not taking anything away from Newton, as the pick was great. However, in the writeup it said that there was no science before Newton. Some early civilizations in Central And South America who would disagree2. There is so much arguing over trivial things up in here. Is this how all the drafts go. I am sure that my picks will be ripped because I am going to go with who I want more than think about ADP. If MK wanted Sun Tzu who cares when he takes him. It was clear it wasnt making it back to him. Why dont we wait to see how the rest of his draft goes before killing him. People would have gone nuts if Larry Fitz was taken over LT at pick 1 last year. How would that have worked out for Team 1

1. good point2. That's kind of the point of these drafts I think. I had never done any of these until the American version but I had read some of the music, cereal, or other drafts and they're just meant to entertain and to some degree, inform. The FF versions aren't good comparisons because we can't really "know" who won these. Often in FF the best draft doesn't win the league because there's luck and the future is involved. I feel pretty safe in saying we know what Napoleon and Sun Tzu will do in the 2009 season. (although the same may not be said for Jesus)

Fair points, thanks

 

[DCThunder]

Some reflections on Newton vs Jesus vs Mohammed vs Shakespeare. Newton was an astonishingly brilliant mind, and I believe the #1 scientist. But if he hadn't come along, someone would have come up with his theories, probably within the next 50 years. xxxxx preceded him, XXXXX was almost contemporaneous, and many others were also involved. Newton simply got there first; an astounding achievement, but someone would have got there very soon.

Jesus, Mohammed and Shakespeare are unique. No one would have done what they did, had they not done so. Which is why I would place all three of them above Newton for #1 overall.

Careful with the spotlighting. You might want to go back and redact what I XXXX'd out.I understand your point, because there was another who also "invented" the calculus at al most the same time.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to admit, this is not going the way I thought it would through the first half of the first round. I wouldn't change my mind on my pick, but my plans for round two have changed dramatically.

I knew the Stalin - Hitler comparison would come up. In truth, I have Stalin as a top 5 as well, so I'm not going to argue one is much much better then the other. To me Hitler hits another level of evil though. But, again, I don't think either is wrong, and in VBD terms, getting Stalin where he was taken is probably better "value" then getting Hitler where I got him.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning.

It is extremely important that everyone refrain from spotlighting. It's easy to forget. Ozymandius spotlighted a few posts ago, and some other people have done so as well. Simply put, do not mention prominent names who have not been selected. TIA.

Ozymandius makes the argument that Jesus and Muhammad are more influential than Newton because of their uniqueness; if Newton had not been around, someone else would have come up with his discoveries.

I could just as easily argue that (a) monotheism represents an inevitable progression in the development of human faith and (b) therefore, if Jesus and Muhammad had never existed, someone else would have taken their places. But I don't want to make this argument, because I have always rejected the notion that individuals are to be discounted in favor of the collective wisdom of the age in which they lived.

Newton did live. He did make his accomplishments, which changed the world more profoundly, IMO, than any other single human being. Whether or not others would have done so is irrelevant to this conversation- HE did it.

 

[timschochet]

I have to admit, this is not going the way I thought it would through the first half of the first round. I wouldn't change my mind on my pick, but my plans for round two have changed dramatically.

I knew the Stalin - Hitler comparison would come up. In truth, I have Stalin as a top 5 as well, so I'm not going to argue one is much much better then the other. To me Hitler hits another level of evil though. But, again, I don't think either is wrong, and in VBD terms, getting Stalin where he was taken is probably better "value" then getting Hitler where I got him.

Wanted to mention- because I forgot last night- there is an excellent book by Bristish historian Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin- Parallel Lives. It switches chapter by chapter giving a biography of each man, and comparing and contrasting them. Great, great read.

 

[AcerFC]

I have to admit, this is not going the way I thought it would through the first half of the first round. I wouldn't change my mind on my pick, but my plans for round two have changed dramatically.

I knew the Stalin - Hitler comparison would come up. In truth, I have Stalin as a top 5 as well, so I'm not going to argue one is much much better then the other. To me Hitler hits another level of evil though. But, again, I don't think either is wrong, and in VBD terms, getting Stalin where he was taken is probably better "value" then getting Hitler where I got him.

Wanted to mention- because I forgot last night- there is an excellent book by Bristish historian Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin- Parallel Lives. It switches chapter by chapter giving a biography of each man, and comparing and contrasting them. Great, great read.

How do you have time to read and post in the FFA all day

 

[timschochet]

I have to admit, this is not going the way I thought it would through the first half of the first round. I wouldn't change my mind on my pick, but my plans for round two have changed dramatically.

I knew the Stalin - Hitler comparison would come up. In truth, I have Stalin as a top 5 as well, so I'm not going to argue one is much much better then the other. To me Hitler hits another level of evil though. But, again, I don't think either is wrong, and in VBD terms, getting Stalin where he was taken is probably better "value" then getting Hitler where I got him.

Wanted to mention- because I forgot last night- there is an excellent book by Bristish historian Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin- Parallel Lives. It switches chapter by chapter giving a biography of each man, and comparing and contrasting them. Great, great read.

How do you have time to read and post in the FFA all day

Good question. I read that book several years ago, before my work essentially chained me to a computer for several hours a day. But I still try and read at least one book every couple of weeks.

 

[Ozymandias]

Good morning.

It is extremely important that everyone refrain from spotlighting. It's easy to forget. Ozymandius spotlighted a few posts ago, and some other people have done so as well. Simply put, do not mention prominent names who have not been selected. TIA.

Ozymandius makes the argument that Jesus and Muhammad are more influential than Newton because of their uniqueness; if Newton had not been around, someone else would have come up with his discoveries.

I could just as easily argue that (a) monotheism represents an inevitable progression in the development of human faith and (b) therefore, if Jesus and Muhammad had never existed, someone else would have taken their places. But I don't want to make this argument, because I have always rejected the notion that individuals are to be discounted in favor of the collective wisdom of the age in which they lived.

Newton did live. He did make his accomplishments, which changed the world more profoundly, IMO, than any other single human being. Whether or not others would have done so is irrelevant to this conversation- HE did it.

Sorry, should not have mentioned those names. And Shakespeare was just a natural progression from xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx, right?Disagree about Newton, because would the world be substantially different today if he had not made his discoveries? I don't think so. But the world is substantially different today because of Jesus and Mohammed. Shakespeare? Not sure he changed the world, but he was unique. Not the first. UNIQUE.

BTW Tim, I don't care what you say about me, but spell my name right.

Or User-maat-re Setep-en-re will not be pleased.

 

[AcerFC]

when the clock starts on Monday, how long to we get?

 

[timschochet]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade.

Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.

Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back.

Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

 

[timschochet]

when the clock starts on Monday, how long to we get?

Clock will start each weekday, beginning Monday, at 10am EST and stop at 7pm EST. Each person has one hour.

 

[Ozymandias]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade. Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back. Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

Both of them were monumental strategic mistakes; Russia has the advantage of space, and weather. Those who invade must strike quickly and decisively to win before the winter sets in; but hard to do with the immense space that Russia can retreat into. In the winter, the advantage shifts to the Russians, who are used to it. Both overreached, and for both it was the beginning of their downfall.

 

[DCThunder]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade. Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back. Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

Yet the Germans in 1914 went East but not with the goal of going to Moscow, just to defeat the Czarist Army, which they did. By 1916, there was no more threat from the East and the Germans were able to move troops to the Western Front and almost win the war.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Good morning.It is extremely important that everyone refrain from spotlighting. It's easy to forget. Ozymandius spotlighted a few posts ago, and some other people have done so as well. Simply put, do not mention prominent names who have not been selected. TIA.

I understand why, but I also think it's difficult to expound on a person's importance without discussing their peers. I think the rule will become more important the further we go, as the people will get more obscure, but to talk about Hitler in terms of Stalin at this point, for example isn't an egregious offense.

 

[timschochet]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade. Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back. Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

Yet the Germans in 1914 went East but not with the goal of going to Moscow, just to defeat the Czarist Army, which they did. By 1916, there was no more threat from the East and the Germans were able to move troops to the Western Front and almost win the war.

Sure, but in 1914-18 it was basically a defensive action for the Germans. They essentially said to the Russians, "Come and get us." Also, Germany was greatly helped by the Russian Revolution of 1917.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

Wiki Link

Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC–323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[3] King (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered (see Wars of Alexander the Great) most of the world as known to the ancient Greeks.[4][5][n 1]

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father, who had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbours, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests included Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, and he extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Alexander had already made plans prior to his death for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision, however, had been to the east, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor and mentor ********.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion". He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners, and he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic period, which featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.[10]

 

[timschochet]

I have to admit, this is not going the way I thought it would through the first half of the first round. I wouldn't change my mind on my pick, but my plans for round two have changed dramatically.I knew the Stalin - Hitler comparison would come up. In truth, I have Stalin as a top 5 as well, so I'm not going to argue one is much much better then the other. To me Hitler hits another level of evil though. But, again, I don't think either is wrong, and in VBD terms, getting Stalin where he was taken is probably better "value" then getting Hitler where I got him.

I was very surprised by Sun Tzu. I was a little surprised by Hitler, and not at all surprised by Stalin (once Hitler was taken, you figure Stalin gpes quick). Napoleon stunned me so early. But the rest of the picks were rather obvious choices, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Excellent choice, JML. Alexander is the first military guy I think of. Never lost a battle, conquered the world. What more do you want?

 

[DCThunder]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade.

Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.

Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back.

Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

Yet the Germans in 1914 went East but not with the goal of going to Moscow, just to defeat the Czarist Army, which they did. By 1916, there was no more threat from the East and the Germans were able to move troops to the Western Front and almost win the war.

Sure, but in 1914-18 it was basically a defensive action for the Germans. They essentially said to the Russians, "Come and get us." Also, Germany was greatly helped by the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Which was caused (in part at least) by the crushing defeat of the Czarist Army in 1914.

 

[FUBAR]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

and the last of the picks I considered at 1.04 are off the board.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

Wiki Link

Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC–323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[3] King (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered (see Wars of Alexander the Great) most of the world as known to the ancient Greeks.[4][5][n 1]

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II, who had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbours, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests included Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, and he extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Alexander had already made plans prior to his death for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision, however, had been to the east, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor and mentor Aristotle.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion". He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners, and he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic period, which featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.[10]

Go back and get rid of the spotlights....... Great pick here. Frankly, it's a steal at this point.

 

[krista4]

IMO, there is still a clear #1 in his category out there (not an author category).

 

[DCThunder]

Excellent choice, JML. Alexander is the first military guy I think of. Never lost a battle, conquered the world. What more do you want?

Lasting impact, perhaps? His "dynasty" was over inside of 30 years after his death. He hated governance, he just wanted to conquer.

 

[timschochet]

In 333 BC, while wintering at Gordium, Alexander attempted to untie the knot. When he could find no end to the knot, to unbind it, he sliced it in half with a stroke of his sword, producing the required ends (the so-called "Alexandrian solution").

 

[timschochet]

Great point Yankee. Please everyone, remove any spotlights from your pasted writeups. TIA.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade.

Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.

Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back.

Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

Well technically the Russians just kept retreating, using scorched earth tactics, even burned Moscow (or rather allowed it to happen). They didn't surround the Grande Armee, but they did the nail the flanks pretty hard on the winter retreat. They didn't cut off the supply lines; it was simply impossible an logistical task to begin with.Interestingly, Hitler knew his history, and Barbarossa was planned for May so he didn't get caught in winter like Napoleon was. Except Mussolini mucked up the timetable; jealous of Germany's conquests, he decided to invade the Greco-Albanian frontier, and at the same time, there was a coup in Belgrade. The Fuhrer diverted resources and pushed everything back four weeks to vent his personal spite and clean up Il Duce's mess.

In the end the Germans marched on almost the same date of departure as Napoleon. Hitler's own pettiness cost him any chance of winning on the eastern front. The author of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich labeled the delay the biggest mistake of WWII.

The Battle for Moscow gets overlooked by historians who find the massive tank battle at Kursk and the siege at Stalingrad to be more compelling. Largest battle in history - 7.5 million - with a horrendous loss of life, perhaps one third of the combatants.

Ideologically Joe and Adolf were starkly different, but what they shared in common was a complete lack of respect for humanity. The loss of millions of lives, be in 'undesirables' or their troops, meant nothing to them.

 

[Ozymandias]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

Wiki Link

Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC–323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[3] King (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered (see Wars of Alexander the Great) most of the world as known to the ancient Greeks.[4][5][n 1]

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II, who had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbours, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests included Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, and he extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Alexander had already made plans prior to his death for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision, however, had been to the east, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor and mentor Aristotle.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion". He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners, and he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic period, which featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.[10]

Outstanding pick. He fought many battles, and was often vastly outnumbered. His personal presence on the battlefield was of enormous importance, not only for his tactical genius, but because his presence made his troops feel invincible. (Napoleon once said that the moral to the material was as 4-1). In Alexander's day, it may have been greater than that. His military victories led to an immense empire, greater than any until his time. Brilliant in strategy, and brilliant in tactics; his troops were well trained and well led. He is said to have wept in India, because there were no more worlds to conquer. But the reality is, his troops were far from home, and they felt they had gone far enough.He is in the top tier, and there is only one other in that tier. Personally, I have him second, but I have no problem with someone picking him first.

 

[DCThunder]

Speaking of Hitler and Napoleon, and Ozymandias may want to comment on this, they were both adventurer-conquerors who made the same strategic error of attacking Russia. Russia is simply too big to invade.

Napoleon went straight to Moscow and occupied it, believing that would crush the opposition. But the Russians simply surrounded the French army and cut off their lines of supply.

Hitler's armies were determined not to make the same mistake, so they invaded with three army groups: one North towards Leningrad, one in the same road to Moscow that Napoleon took, and one South. This way, the Russians could not surround and cut them off in any one place. But this scheme didn't work either, as it demanded more troops than the Germans could supply. In the end, the Sixth Army in the South did not have enough manpower at Stalingrad to get the job done. In the North, the Russians survived the siege of Leningrad, and held Moscow in the center. Hitler was also driven back.

Russia proved to be the fatal turning point for both men.

Well technically the Russians just kept retreating, using scorched earth tactics, even burned Moscow (or rather allowed it to happen). They didn't surround the Grande Armee, but they did the nail the flanks pretty hard on the winter retreat. They didn't cut off the supply lines; it was simply impossible an logistical task to begin with.Interestingly, Hitler knew his history, and Barbarossa was planned for May so he didn't get caught in winter like Napoleon was. Except Mussolini mucked up the timetable; jealous of Germany's conquests, he decided to invade the Greco-Albanian frontier, and at the same time, there was a coup in Belgrade. The Fuhrer diverted resources and pushed everything back four weeks to vent his personal spite and clean up Il Duce's mess.

In the end the Germans marched on almost the same date of departure as Napoleon. Hitler's own pettiness cost him any chance of winning on the eastern front. The author of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich labeled the delay the biggest mistake of WWII.

The Battle for Moscow gets overlooked by historians who find the massive tank battle at Kursk and the siege at Stalingrad to be more compelling. Largest battle in history - 7.5 million - with a horrendous loss of life, perhaps one third of the combatants.

Ideologically Joe and Adolf were starkly different, but what they shared in common was a complete lack of respect for humanity. The loss of millions of lives, be in 'undesirables' or their troops, meant nothing to them.

Russia's forced relocation of key factories and other industrial capacity east to beyond the Urals also played a role. The Gernams could kill Russian soldiers, but they never really destroyed the factories for building more tanks and planes and guns.

 

[timschochet]

The only guy that defeats Alexander in battle is Ender, and you can't draft him.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

Wiki Link

Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC–323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[3] King (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered (see Wars of Alexander the Great) most of the world as known to the ancient Greeks.[4][5][n 1]

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II, who had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbours, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests included Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, and he extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Alexander had already made plans prior to his death for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision, however, had been to the east, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor and mentor Aristotle.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion". He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners, and he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic period, which featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.[10]

Outstanding pick. He fought many battles, and was often vastly outnumbered. His personal presence on the battlefield was of enormous importance, not only for his tactical genius, but because his presence made his troops feel invincible. (Napoleon once said that the moral to the material was as 4-1). In Alexander's day, it may have been greater than that. His military victories led to an immense empire, greater than any until his time. Brilliant in strategy, and brilliant in tactics; his troops were well trained and well led. He is said to have wept in India, because there were no more worlds to conquer. But the reality is, his troops were far from home, and they felt they had gone far enough.He is in the top tier, and there is only one other in that tier. Personally, I have him second, but I have no problem with someone picking him first.

Very suprised he fell this far, great selection.

 

[Ozymandias]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

Wiki Link

Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC–323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[3] King (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered (see Wars of Alexander the Great) most of the world as known to the ancient Greeks.[4][5][n 1]

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II, who had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbours, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests included Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, and he extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Alexander had already made plans prior to his death for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision, however, had been to the east, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor and mentor Aristotle.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion". He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners, and he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic period, which featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.[10]

Outstanding pick. He fought many battles, and was often vastly outnumbered. His personal presence on the battlefield was of enormous importance, not only for his tactical genius, but because his presence made his troops feel invincible. (Napoleon once said that the moral to the material was as 4-1). In Alexander's day, it may have been greater than that. His military victories led to an immense empire, greater than any until his time. Brilliant in strategy, and brilliant in tactics; his troops were well trained and well led. He is said to have wept in India, because there were no more worlds to conquer. But the reality is, his troops were far from home, and they felt they had gone far enough.He is in the top tier, and there is only one other in that tier. Personally, I have him second, but I have no problem with someone picking him first.

Very suprised he fell this far, great selection.

At the battle of Issus, Alexander defeated Darius III of Persia, even though he was outnumbered 2-1. We've all see the movies of the scythed chariots charging into the battle. After Issus, they were never a factor in battle again. Alexander, knowing how horses would react, had his men form into a W formation when the chariots charged. No horse will charge into the head of a column bristling with spears, he will veer off to the side; once he got inside the W, the charioteer was killed.

 

[timschochet]

Some interesting quotes by Alexander the Great:

I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.

I would rather excel others in the knowledge of what is excellent, than in the extent of my power and dominion.

There is nothing impossible to him who will try.

Heaven cannot brook two suns, nor earth two masters.

Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Was facing a tough choice between 4 people here.

One of my top 6 is still available however and I probably want to go in another direction, but can’t pass him up

1:13 – Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great)

Military (for now)

Wiki Link

Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Mégas Aléxandros; 356 BC–323 BC),[2] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Ἀλέξανδρος Γ' ὁ Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[3] King (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered (see Wars of Alexander the Great) most of the world as known to the ancient Greeks.[4][5][n 1]

Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II, who had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbours, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which he defeated and overthrew. His conquests included Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, and he extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Alexander had already made plans prior to his death for military and mercantile expansions into the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision, however, had been to the east, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor and mentor Aristotle.

Alexander integrated many foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion". He also encouraged marriages between his soldiers and foreigners, and he himself went on to marry two foreign princesses.

Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism.[8][9] His legacy and conquests lived on long after him and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas. This period is known as the Hellenistic period, which featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture. Alexander himself featured prominently in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appeared as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.[10]

Go back and get rid of the spotlights....... Great pick here. Frankly, it's a steal at this point.

He was one of the people I seriously considered at 3, and I wouldn't have batted an eye if he had been taken number 2. Great choice.

 

[timschochet]

Great quotes by Napoleon Bonaparte:

A celebrated people lose dignity upon a closer view.

A Constitution should be short and obscure.

A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A revolution can be neither made nor stopped. The only thing that can be done is for one of several of its children to give it a direction by dint of victories.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.

A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.

A throne is only a bench covered with velvet.

Ability is nothing without opportunity.

All religions have been made by men.

Ambition never is in a greater hurry that I; it merely keeps pace with circumstances and with my general way of thinking.

Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.

He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.

I am sometimes a fox and sometimes a lion. The whole secret of government lies in knowing when to be the one or the other.

I can no longer obey; I have tasted command, and I cannot give it up.

I have only one counsel for you - be master.

I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it. I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies.

If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.

Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools.

In order to govern, the question is not to follow out a more or less valid theory but to build with whatever materials are at hand. The inevitable must be accepted and turned to advantage.

In politics stupidity is not a handicap.

In politics... never retreat, never retract... never admit a mistake.

Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.

Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.

Men take only their needs into consideration - never their abilities.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.

One should never forbid what one lacks the power to prevent.

Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me.

 

[timschochet]

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

This particular quote has always represented my personal feelings about most conspiracy theories I hear.

 

[timschochet]

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.

Our last few Presidents (including the one in office now) have paid very close attention to this advice...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Usual21 was here. I wonder if he knew he was up?

 

[FUBAR]

Q: If a person's name is unknown, can we draft the person by describing the event?

 

[timschochet]

Q: If a person's name is unknown, can we draft the person by describing the event?

I see your point, but I'd rather you didn't. I prefer not to have picks like, "the dude that created the wheel" if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. There's plenty of people out there who we know something about them.

 

[FUBAR]

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.

Our last few Presidents (including the one in office now) have paid very close attention to this advice...

I'm often counseled to overpromise and underdeliver.

 

[FUBAR]

Q: If a person's name is unknown, can we draft the person by describing the event?

I see your point, but I'd rather you didn't. I prefer not to have picks like, "the dude that created the wheel" if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. There's plenty of people out there who we know something about them.

darnit! I looked it up, says Mesopotamian. Sounds like a good dude.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Q: If a person's name is unknown, can we draft the person by describing the event?

I see your point, but I'd rather you didn't. I prefer not to have picks like, "the dude that created the wheel" if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. There's plenty of people out there who we know something about them.

Can we get some clarification on pairs, trios, groups, etc. Won't affect anything now, but for down the road. I can think of a few where you have to draft both since neither would work as a stand alone, but PLEASE, no 1980 USA Hockey Team or 442nd Regiment in this one.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Q: If a person's name is unknown, can we draft the person by describing the event?

I see your point, but I'd rather you didn't. I prefer not to have picks like, "the dude that created the wheel" if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. There's plenty of people out there who we know something about them.

The plow is the most important invention ever. The dude/dudette that invented it is therefore the most important inventor ever.

 

[Usual21]

I'm here...give me a few. Trying to teach math to stubborn kids!

 

[FUBAR]

Q: If a person's name is unknown, can we draft the person by describing the event?

I see your point, but I'd rather you didn't. I prefer not to have picks like, "the dude that created the wheel" if that's the sort of thing you have in mind. There's plenty of people out there who we know something about them.

The plow is the most important invention ever. The dude/dudette that invented it is therefore the most important inventor ever.

I'm going to draft the guy who invented God.