I've got dibs on Jeffrey Maier.Nice pick on Pele. He's a clear cut #1 IMO. World's greatest in its most popular sport and did his best work on the international stage, leading Brazil to 3 World Cup championships. I don't even know who I'd put at #2.
Word. Andy Dufresne on the clock until 4:05.will be back around 4:00, next person can pick..... I'll pick when I get back.
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander. His battle at Cannae may well be the greatest victory in history. He was outnumbered by the Romans almost 2-1 (and the Romans were no slouches), and by judicious use of picking the ground, and then using an outward crescent which slowly (and deliberately) retreated in formation, he drew the Romans into a double envelopment where he came close to annihilating them.As distinct from the Mongols and Alexander, who had some superiority in arms or formation compared to their opponents, this was between armies which were similar in arms and formation. Nothing but sheer battlefield brilliance. The Romans studied his tactics, and were eventually able to defeat him. If he had received logistical support from Carthage, there might have been no Roman Empire. But he was unable to take Rome.Easy top 5 in the military category. Great pick.4.03 (63rd pick) - Hannibal - Military
(248-183 or 182 BC) was a Carthaginian military commander and tactician who is popularly credited as one of the most talented commanders in history.
His father was the leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War. Hannibal lived during a period of tension in the Mediterranean, when Rome (then the Roman Republic) established its supremacy over other great powers such as Carthage, and the Hellenistic kingdoms of Macedon, Syracuse, and the Seleucid empire. One of his most famous achievements was at the outbreak of the Second Punic War, when he marched an army, which included war elephants, from Iberia over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy.
His first few years in Italy, he won three dramatic victories at the Battle of Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene and the Battle of Cannae, and won over several Roman allies. The victory at Cannae has often been cited as one of the most perfect battles ever fought, as the army of Carthage decisively defeated a numerically superior army of the Roman Republic. Regarded to this day as one of the greatest tactical feats in military history, it was, in terms of the numbers killed, the second greatest defeat of Rome. After 17 years, a Roman counter-invasion of North Africa forced him to return to Carthage, where he was decisively defeated at the Battle of Zama.
After the war Hannibal successfully ran for the office of suffete. He enacted political and financial reforms to enable the payment of the war indemnity imposed by Rome. However, Hannibal's reforms were unpopular with members of the Carthaginian aristocracy and Rome, and he fled into voluntary exile. During his exile, he lived at the Seleucid court, where he acted as military advisor in a war against Rome. Hannibal fled after the war, making a stop in Armenia. His flight ended in the court of Bithynia, where he achieved an outstanding naval victory against a fleet from Pergamum. He was afterward betrayed to the Romans.
Hannibal would later be considered as one of the greatest generals of antiquity, together with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and others. Military historians call Hannibal the "father of strategy", because his greatest enemy, Rome, came to adopt elements of his military tactics in its own strategic arsenal. This praise has earned him a strong reputation in the modern world and he was regarded as a "gifted strategist" by other great generals. His life has been the basis for a number of films and documentaries.
He has been attributed with the famous quotation,
"We will either find a way, or make one."
Hannibal crossing the Alps
You want some of that? Bring it on! Give him equal armament, I would put this general up against any military strategist from any period.
Nufced.
Just wondering if a sport's star could be enough of an all around athlete. Was chatting with another FBG and I think it takes more. Although if that is your criteria then you probably gotta go with Pele(He is soccer personified). If anyone want's some of my thoughts on what I would be looking for in this category I'd be willing to PM cause this is one of the cats that I have been chawing with some others about.Nice pick on Pele. He's a clear cut #1 IMO. World's greatest in its most popular sport and did his best work on the international stage, leading Brazil to 3 World Cup championships. I don't even know who I'd put at #2.
That's the paradox of being near the turn. Both times I got 2 picks I really, really wanted.Now I get toI think we'll start to separate the wheat from the chaff in a few rounds. Right now it is pretty frustrating watching people go.I've come to the conclusion that 20 teams in this thing is just too fracking many. It's not that I don't like the discussion in between picks, mind you. That's fun. No, it's waiting like 30 picks to make a move and see player after player come off the board just because tim wanted to be the guy that hosted the longest and most historically entertaining draft on the board. I mean, how' that for ego? He looks like a draft host legend of thegroup amongst us, and those of us trying to draft see pick after pick coming off the board, forcing to say
like we are some dumb Wheel of Fortune contestant clapping for the other guy to win all the money and say Gimmie an F real loud to Vanna White.
Yeah, that's what I want to do - clap for the other guy. No, tim, you are an evil Pat Sajack. Spin!
![]()
cross
off
names
for 35 picks.You're quite welcome to name me as a villain. I give myself high marks in this category.No, tim, you are an evil Pat Sajack. Spin!
![]()
It may turn out that Lao Tzu, taken at the start of the 4th round, is a better pick than Sun Tzu, taken at the start of the 1st. As Confucious said, "All crows under Heaven are black."So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
Nice pick.And thus begins the part of the draft where I take guys that interest me moreso than how I think they'll be received.4.5: Neil Armstrong - ExplorerHe's the first human being to set foot on a world that is not Earth. 'Nuff said.
Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
You're probably right. But it doesn't bother me. He was still first.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Genghis wins. The Mongols were the greatest horsemen in the world. At a full racing gallop, they could shoot a third arrow before the first had landed. Mongols trained their children from boyhood to be mounted archers. That is what made them the devastating force they were. Hannibal would have never got a chance to use his weapons.So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...
I don't think it was arbitrary because Armstrong was the command pilot.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Exactly. Each of the three played a very specific role in the mission.I don't think it was arbitrary because Armstrong was the command pilot.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
I don't think it was arbitrary because Armstrong was the command pilot.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
The bigger threat was that another flight crew would be chosen for Apollo 11, but given that it was his crew there was no question Armstrong would be first.Is this shtick or a real question?Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
"We will either find a way, or make one."Genghis wins. The Mongols were the greatest horsemen in the world. At a full racing gallop, they could shoot a third arrow before the first had landed. Mongols trained their children from boyhood to be mounted archers. That is what made them the devastating force they were. Hannibal would have never got a chance to use his weapons.So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...
It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Tzu and Alexander lived at the same time. Alexander conquered the "known" world. It would be very hard for him to have studied the Art of War a/before it was written b/before he became a general and c/hw could he study something from a part of he world not even known to exist?Hannibal was a Meditearranean figure only a hundred or so years later. Don't think China was known to the "West" by then ro what influence such a different culture would've had on those early Med societies.Ghengis was a 13th century conqueror in the same region of Tzu so he could very well be familiar with it but I haven't found anything about it in his bios.Napoleon was influenced by it just as he was by Hannibal. This is why I contend that those that put theories of several different thorists to practical use should rank higher than theorists, unless some great general is known to ONLY use one theory to achieve some greatness.Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
Why wouldn't you? It's your pick right?Can I pick?Can I? Locked and loaded... Waiting for the go ahead.
Neither did Genghis, to my knowledge. In fact, if Hannibal had not lost at Zama, he might well have climbed to #1 in the rankings. There is something to be said, not only for an undefeated season, but for an undefeated career."We will either find a way, or make one."Genghis wins. The Mongols were the greatest horsemen in the world. At a full racing gallop, they could shoot a third arrow before the first had landed. Mongols trained their children from boyhood to be mounted archers. That is what made them the devastating force they were. Hannibal would have never got a chance to use his weapons.So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...![]()
But Alex beats them both, he's Marciano; he never lost.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
Which is why maybe Tzu should be an intellectual.Tzu and Alexander lived at the same time. Alexander conquered the "known" world. It would be very hard for him to have studied the Art of War a/before it was written b/before he became a general and c/hw could he study something from a part of he world not even known to exist?Hannibal was a Meditearranean figure only a hundred or so years later. Don't think China was known to the "West" by then ro what influence such a different culture would've had on those early Med societies.Ghengis was a 13th century conqueror in the same region of Tzu so he could very well be familiar with it but I haven't found anything about it in his bios.Napoleon was influenced by it just as he was by Hannibal. This is why I contend that those that put theories of several different thorists to practical use should rank higher than theorists, unless some great general is known to ONLY use one theory to achieve some greatness.Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
I was debating this pick but wasn't sure on how much of the prep and planning Armstrong did. It took incredibly more men and technology worknig in unison to land him there and quite frankly what's the reason/purpose of doing it? Most of the explorers' explorations led to material gains for their homelands. Other than beating the Russkies to it what has landing on the moon done for us? Why hasn't it been done again?It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Well, HTH said the next guy could go, but didn't say to put him on autoskip, so not sure what the protocol is... He said he'd be making his pick at about 4PM.Why wouldn't you? It's your pick right?Can I pick?Can I? Locked and loaded... Waiting for the go ahead.
Ah, good point... his pick slot has timed out though (at 3:50).Well, HTH said the next guy could go, but didn't say to put him on autoskip, so not sure what the protocol is... He said he'd be making his pick at about 4PM.Why wouldn't you? It's your pick right?Can I pick?Can I? Locked and loaded... Waiting for the go ahead.
IIRC, Armstrong was one of the few (if not only) civilian test pilots in NASA. The others like Shepard or Glenn or Lovell were ex-military and NASA and LBJ felt that it was important that it be a civilian who first stepped on the moon. All those Right Stuff guys of Apollo and Gemini and Mercury are true American heros because they were being asked to fly hardware that came from the lowest bidder. And again IIRC, the computer in your car has more horsepower than the computers aboard the command module and the Lunar lander.It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Jack is more important...BobbyLayne said:3.18 (58th pick) - John Locke - Intellectual
There were 7 manned moon landings. Once they figured out that there was nothing there, there was no reason to go back.I was debating this pick but wasn't sure on how much of the prep and planning Armstrong did. It took incredibly more men and technology worknig in unison to land him there and quite frankly what's the reason/purpose of doing it? Most of the explorers' explorations led to material gains for their homelands. Other than beating the Russkies to it what has landing on the moon done for us? Why hasn't it been done again?It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Alright, I'll start my writeup then. Pick coming shortly.Ah, good point... his pick slot has timed out though (at 3:50).Well, HTH said the next guy could go, but didn't say to put him on autoskip, so not sure what the protocol is... He said he'd be making his pick at about 4PM.Why wouldn't you? It's your pick right?Can I pick?Can I? Locked and loaded... Waiting for the go ahead.
Well, first off, the expeditions of all the other explorers picked so far were also massive undertakings in their day and required relatively vast sums from the treasuries to succeed. None of them were acting alone.As for what we've gotten out of space exploration, well, were still in the infancy of the space age. But even still, global communications, GPS, microwaves, Tang, insights into the beginning of the universe, medicines, etc...The wealth of resources available in just the astroid belt would dwarf the collective wealth of the entire world many times over. Besides, its not like within 40 years of Columbus the Americas were being fully exploited, and space is a tad bit harder to exploit.I was debating this pick but wasn't sure on how much of the prep and planning Armstrong did. It took incredibly more men and technology worknig in unison to land him there and quite frankly what's the reason/purpose of doing it? Most of the explorers' explorations led to material gains for their homelands. Other than beating the Russkies to it what has landing on the moon done for us? Why hasn't it been done again?It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
Jack's a know it all/know nothing guy.Locke is the heart and soul of the showJack is more important...BobbyLayne said:3.18 (58th pick) - John Locke - Intellectual
I like commentary that livens up a draft, but I agree with dparker that judges should remain silent until after the draft ends, at least as it pertains to their category.Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
Your commentary is excellent, just probably best to stick to tiers rather than specific numbers.Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
I think it only became an "issue" in the other draft because people started guessing at who the unpicked people were in Thorn's author list. I don't really care and love your commentary, so either way, please continue.Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
Keep going..... I'll catch up in a bit.Can I pick?Can I? Locked and loaded... Waiting for the go ahead.
Well, if someone picks a military person that you consider not even in the top 20, they may re-pick that selection to try to curry favor, and then choose to move that person to a WC slot. It happened to several people in the last draft and effected the picks that they would have made later in the draft. And there are plenty of picks that are not military that you could comment on. No need to avoid the draft, even if you decide not to comment on military picks.Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
My favorite CIV leader.I suspect this pick may not be incredibly popular, as this guy is not as well known or notorious as others in the category, but I can't find a good reason not to take him here. I think a strong case could be made that he belongs in the discussion for top leader. At the very worst, I think he belongs in the top 5. Whether or not the judge's rankings bear this out, I don't know, but I can't say I care either, as I've already said I'm picking guys in this draft who I like regardless of how I think they'll be perceived.My pick for leader is:Asoka, AKA Ashoka the Great

you're right about Australia. I forgot that he basically discovered that too. And New Zealand.I hardly think that New Zealand and Australia would agree with that. Great Britain had a problem after 1776 (most Americans don't know this). They didn't have a place to send their jailbirds. Enter Australia. Problem solved.Although Cook was British, it was other countries that benefited most from his discoveries. Hawaii was soon dominated by America, for example, which used the Islands as a harbor for it's whalers in the first half of the 19th Century. Tahiti was dominated by France.
How could you forget Australia?It had been discovered before him, he mapped and claimed it for Britain