Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Worst Military Leaders in History?

Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:36:18 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.toptenz.net...

I came across this, and couldn't help but have a chuckle... I agree with all of it, with the exception of Rommel.

I was surprised Braxton Bragg was not on the list.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 9:21:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:18 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.toptenz.net...

I came across this, and couldn't help but have a chuckle... I agree with all of it, with the exception of Rommel.

I was surprised Braxton Bragg was not on the list.

Why was Ambrose Burnside not on this list?

Come to think of it? Why not General Sinclair?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:26:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
George W. Bush would easily top this list if not for two things:

1) It's questionable he had any military competence to begin with, and
2) It's questionable he had any competence as a national leader to begin with.

As for MacArthur, I understand MacArthur is a controversial figure, but the article is simply idiotic: 1) The Philippines was still a US protectorate during that time, so all MacArthur was advocating was that we protect US interests. 2) To also discount Inchon as something that even an incompetent commander could accomplish is only to highlight the incompetence of the author of the article. 3) As far as China's involvement, MacArthur was rather open that he was looking to pick that particular fight, for better or for worse. That he was subsequently hamstrung by the White House in his efforts to wage a proper war given Chinese inclusion led to the retreat more than MacArthur's prosecution of that war. On a conventional basis, the US could have easily won a war with China...it's arguable that the US SHOULD have expanded that war up to Beijing.

There are many reasons to dislike MacArthur and the article does touch upon a few of them (such as expanding the Korean war to possibly become a nuclear war with Russia), but the rest is simply asinine balderdash. It's much more empty rhetoric than an even-handed approach to military history.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:56:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 9:21:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:18 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.toptenz.net...

I came across this, and couldn't help but have a chuckle... I agree with all of it, with the exception of Rommel.

I was surprised Braxton Bragg was not on the list.

I can see why.... although Bragg is perhaps less known than some of the other leaders listed.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 4:05:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...

It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 5:56:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

A country's power can be measured in numerous ways, and multiple factors could arguably feed into that equation. To say there is just one - the economy - is fairly narrow sighted. My comment was more intended to be sarcastic than to actually indulge the argument; I am assuming that iheartNK isn't actually serious based on the content of some of his other posts.

Now that you've brought it up, a solid economy is meaningless with the government infrastructure to make use of that economy. You can look at Japan in the 70's and 80's, or China now - I can virtually guarantee their economy will plummet before it surpasses that of the United States... Moreover, in the current global arena, militarism plays an important role in defining a country's 'power.'

Your argument about the South and the Germans is debatable. I'd agree that the Southern economy was crippled and it played a factor in the war - but that was largely because of Union Generals advancing through Southern territory and burning everything they could. The South had some great Generals from 1861 to 1865 whom the North couldn't even compete with, but starting in '63 the North really started to have superb leadership. As for Germany, most major operations were approved/edited by Hitler and Himmler, both of whom entirely lacking in military experience. Furthermore, the crushing numbers of the allied assault was too strong for the German defenses. As for Germany's economy, bear in mind it was also bolstered by slave labor from the concentration camps...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 1:10:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 4:05:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...

It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

...and the Mongols had no economy and conquered the known world.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 1:28:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:10:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/8/2014 4:05:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...

It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

...and the Mongols had no economy and conquered the known world.

They most certainly did. How do you think you equip an Army? Forge Armor and Swords? Raise horses and feed them?

And the Monguls prove the point. There 'Empire' lasts as long as Khan, and then faded into oblivion - precisely because its far flung Empire could not be sustained by the economic forces that created the military force.

You also have the relative dearth of functional Nation-States or Empires that the concentrated power of the Monguls were able to defeat piecemeal. Yet united? As happened in the Middle East? The Hoard was stopped. Siberia is not exactly the known world, and the hoard barely penetrated Europe, where concentrated political and economic forces would have presented a vastly different challenge to the Asiatic hoards. The same goes for India.

The centers of political and economic power (save China, and then only temporary) were not touched by the Mongolians. Their ability to concentrate their power proved temporary. The battle, verses the war.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 1:35:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 5:56:11 PM, Praesentya wrote:
It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

A country's power can be measured in numerous ways, and multiple factors could arguably feed into that equation. To say there is just one - the economy - is fairly narrow sighted. My comment was more intended to be sarcastic than to actually indulge the argument; I am assuming that iheartNK isn't actually serious based on the content of some of his other posts.

Now that you've brought it up, a solid economy is meaningless with the government infrastructure to make use of that economy. You can look at Japan in the 70's and 80's, or China now - I can virtually guarantee their economy will plummet before it surpasses that of the United States... Moreover, in the current global arena, militarism plays an important role in defining a country's 'power.'

Your argument about the South and the Germans is debatable. I'd agree that the Southern economy was crippled and it played a factor in the war - but that was largely because of Union Generals advancing through Southern territory and burning everything they could. The South had some great Generals from 1861 to 1865 whom the North couldn't even compete with, but starting in '63 the North really started to have superb leadership. As for Germany, most major operations were approved/edited by Hitler and Himmler, both of whom entirely lacking in military experience. Furthermore, the crushing numbers of the allied assault was too strong for the German defenses. As for Germany's economy, bear in mind it was also bolstered by slave labor from the concentration camps...

It comes down to a well know reality of war: attrition.

WWI and WWII are perfect examples. Paul Kennedy's the rise and fall of the Great Powers lays out the case for this wonderfully. Generals certainly must be competent, but war is, as Clausewitz notes, politics by other means.

Generals who seek 'victory' (like Hitler in the OP), rather than who understand the use of force to achieve political ends are pro generals indeed.

I would contrast Bismarck, who famously kept the German military in check after three wars (Schlewig Holstein, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian), to unite Germany. The political goal attained he stopped the military.

His successors, who lacked his vision, used the military to antagonize the other Great Powers, locked the diplomatic reality into a rigid triggered system, and allowed militarism to become and end in and of itself. And the Great Powers happily went to war, each thinking it would be a 'Quick Victory'. Instead, it became WWI, and hitherto unimaginable slaughter.

The Generals lost site of the reality of war, and rather than deliver 'victory', they poured so much of their economic forces into defeating one another that they undermined their very political fortunes and unravelled their own Empires in squandered waste of men and material.

In the end, it boiled down to who could train, equip, and then send the most people into the inferno the fastest. Little more than that.

Was that worth Europe's effort? After two goes at it, most of Europe has concluded: No.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 1:48:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:28:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:10:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/8/2014 4:05:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...

It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

...and the Mongols had no economy and conquered the known world.

They most certainly did. How do you think you equip an Army? Forge Armor and Swords? Raise horses and feed them?

Are you seriously making the argument that the Mongols had any sort of comparable economy compared to the nations they conquered? The Mongols didn't even have written script.

In order for your point to be valid, you must argue that the Mongols had a superior economy compared to China and the Middle East, which is asinine at best, delusion at worst.

And the Monguls prove the point. There 'Empire' lasts as long as Khan, and then faded into oblivion - precisely because its far flung Empire could not be sustained by the economic forces that created the military force.

That's one possible analysis. Another possible analysis is that the main reason why the Mongols faded into oblivion is because they destroyed their own culture - they accepted the cultures they conquered as being superior to their own, allowed foreign economies to stand and adapted foreign customs which were incongruous with their own.

Many people react in horror when they learn that Genghis Khan actually seriously considered razing every single city he conquered to the ground and killing off anyone that could not adapt to their nomadic lifestyle...but this was also a practical consideration considering their lifestyle, because they planned on turning those cities and the neighboring farmlands into pastureland for their horses, the source of their military power.

You also have the relative dearth of functional Nation-States or Empires that the concentrated power of the Monguls were able to defeat piecemeal. Yet united? As happened in the Middle East? The Hoard was stopped. Siberia is not exactly the known world, and the hoard barely penetrated Europe, where concentrated political and economic forces would have presented a vastly different challenge to the Asiatic hoards. The same goes for India.

The hoard was NOT stopped in the Middle East - they took the Fertile Crescent. The only reason the Mongols stopped at Europe is because Genghis Khan died before his plans were enacted, and bickering over succession and the settling of conquered lands placated the Mongol will to conquer. The Mongols were widely recognized in Europe as being invincible, and had they indeed burned every city they encountered to the ground, there would have been nothing to settle, and so the Mongols would have continued their scorched earth policy throughout Europe even after Genghis Khan's death.

The Mongols simply had no practical use for what constituted civilized life at the time. That they took on such customs is what conquered the Mongols, not some actual military resistance. No one could resist the Mongols militarily. The military technology and tactics that they possessed was far superior on the battlefield than any other army fielded in that time - this despite their almost non-existent economy.

The centers of political and economic power (save China, and then only temporary) were not touched by the Mongolians. Their ability to concentrate their power proved temporary. The battle, verses the war.

That is because they abdicated their claim to power the moment they supplanted their own cultural norms with that of foreigners.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 2:56:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:48:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:28:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:10:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/8/2014 4:05:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...

It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

...and the Mongols had no economy and conquered the known world.

They most certainly did. How do you think you equip an Army? Forge Armor and Swords? Raise horses and feed them?

Are you seriously making the argument that the Mongols had any sort of comparable economy compared to the nations they conquered? The Mongols didn't even have written script.

In order for your point to be valid, you must argue that the Mongols had a superior economy compared to China and the Middle East, which is asinine at best, delusion at worst.

And the Monguls prove the point. There 'Empire' lasts as long as Khan, and then faded into oblivion - precisely because its far flung Empire could not be sustained by the economic forces that created the military force.

That's one possible analysis. Another possible analysis is that the main reason why the Mongols faded into oblivion is because they destroyed their own culture - they accepted the cultures they conquered as being superior to their own, allowed foreign economies to stand and adapted foreign customs which were incongruous with their own.

Many people react in horror when they learn that Genghis Khan actually seriously considered razing every single city he conquered to the ground and killing off anyone that could not adapt to their nomadic lifestyle...but this was also a practical consideration considering their lifestyle, because they planned on turning those cities and the neighboring farmlands into pastureland for their horses, the source of their military power.

You also have the relative dearth of functional Nation-States or Empires that the concentrated power of the Monguls were able to defeat piecemeal. Yet united? As happened in the Middle East? The Hoard was stopped. Siberia is not exactly the known world, and the hoard barely penetrated Europe, where concentrated political and economic forces would have presented a vastly different challenge to the Asiatic hoards. The same goes for India.

The hoard was NOT stopped in the Middle East - they took the Fertile Crescent. The only reason the Mongols stopped at Europe is because Genghis Khan died before his plans were enacted, and bickering over succession and the settling of conquered lands placated the Mongol will to conquer. The Mongols were widely recognized in Europe as being invincible, and had they indeed burned every city they encountered to the ground, there would have been nothing to settle, and so the Mongols would have continued their scorched earth policy throughout Europe even after Genghis Khan's death.

The Mongols simply had no practical use for what constituted civilized life at the time. That they took on such customs is what conquered the Mongols, not some actual military resistance. No one could resist the Mongols militarily. The military technology and tactics that they possessed was far superior on the battlefield than any other army fielded in that time - this despite their almost non-existent economy.

The centers of political and economic power (save China, and then only temporary) were not touched by the Mongolians. Their ability to concentrate their power proved temporary. The battle, verses the war.

That is because they abdicated their claim to power the moment they supplanted their own cultural norms with that of foreigners.

I a word, yes. Please referrence the centers of economic ans political power, but contemporary and modern, and lay out what the Mongols conqured. Is there a vast economic and political prescence on the Asiatic Stepps? Siberia planes? Well before the the Russia Empire emerged as a political force?

The Monguls barely entered Europe, where centers like teh Caroligian Empire offered a countering force of strength and ability. The Monguls flowed through almost nothing, save China. When they did hit a center of political/economic resistance -- they were halted. That would be the Middle East.

In proof of point, the Hoardes great destructive powers wrecked havoc, but the extension of Empire was stopped when it hit a serious economic counter weight. True to form, the Hoard was defeated, and, lacking the charismatic leadership of the Khan, witered and died to the point that even the Chinese threw off the Mongul oppression.

Mongolia's econmic forecs were at best, the equal of then other economic centers in the world. And certainly superior to the isolated Asiatic Stepp regions it conqured. Saying the Monguls conqured the known world is simple false. They failed to conqure India, the Middle East/Persia, and Europe. They, at best, temporarily subsummed China, and an empty grass land empire. In time, the economic realities of China returned Mongolia to its subserviant position where it was for for generations before the Khan and remains for a thousand years after the Khan.

Other than an expensive and bloody blaze of glory, what exactly did Mongolia gain by it 'superior' generals? That they still cling to this image of martial glory rather than fixating on fundamental changes to economy? That is a steep price indeed.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 4:25:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 2:56:00 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:48:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:28:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:10:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/8/2014 4:05:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/8/2014 1:36:59 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 7/7/2014 12:26:26 PM, iheartNK wrote:
I agree. All the military leaders on it are bad. The koreans and chinese leaders are much good.

That explains why North Korea and China are the most powerful countries on the planet. Please...

It isn't Generals that make a country powerful, it the economy. The South had the best Generals ... they lost. The Germans had the best Generals in WWII, they lost.

Just to be clear, I disagree with both of you. It's the military that makes a country powerful, and both the economy and leadership are factors in determining military might.

...and the Mongols had no economy and conquered the known world.

They most certainly did. How do you think you equip an Army? Forge Armor and Swords? Raise horses and feed them?

Are you seriously making the argument that the Mongols had any sort of comparable economy compared to the nations they conquered? The Mongols didn't even have written script.

In order for your point to be valid, you must argue that the Mongols had a superior economy compared to China and the Middle East, which is asinine at best, delusion at worst.

And the Monguls prove the point. There 'Empire' lasts as long as Khan, and then faded into oblivion - precisely because its far flung Empire could not be sustained by the economic forces that created the military force.

That's one possible analysis. Another possible analysis is that the main reason why the Mongols faded into oblivion is because they destroyed their own culture - they accepted the cultures they conquered as being superior to their own, allowed foreign economies to stand and adapted foreign customs which were incongruous with their own.

Many people react in horror when they learn that Genghis Khan actually seriously considered razing every single city he conquered to the ground and killing off anyone that could not adapt to their nomadic lifestyle...but this was also a practical consideration considering their lifestyle, because they planned on turning those cities and the neighboring farmlands into pastureland for their horses, the source of their military power.

You also have the relative dearth of functional Nation-States or Empires that the concentrated power of the Monguls were able to defeat piecemeal. Yet united? As happened in the Middle East? The Hoard was stopped. Siberia is not exactly the known world, and the hoard barely penetrated Europe, where concentrated political and economic forces would have presented a vastly different challenge to the Asiatic hoards. The same goes for India.

The hoard was NOT stopped in the Middle East - they took the Fertile Crescent. The only reason the Mongols stopped at Europe is because Genghis Khan died before his plans were enacted, and bickering over succession and the settling of conquered lands placated the Mongol will to conquer. The Mongols were widely recognized in Europe as being invincible, and had they indeed burned every city they encountered to the ground, there would have been nothing to settle, and so the Mongols would have continued their scorched earth policy throughout Europe even after Genghis Khan's death.

The Mongols simply had no practical use for what constituted civilized life at the time. That they took on such customs is what conquered the Mongols, not some actual military resistance. No one could resist the Mongols militarily. The military technology and tactics that they possessed was far superior on the battlefield than any other army fielded in that time - this despite their almost non-existent economy.

The centers of political and economic power (save China, and then only temporary) were not touched by the Mongolians. Their ability to concentrate their power proved temporary. The battle, verses the war.

That is because they abdicated their claim to power the moment they supplanted their own cultural norms with that of foreigners.

I a word, yes. Please referrence the centers of economic ans political power, but contemporary and modern, and lay out what the Mongols conqured. Is there a vast economic and political prescence on the Asiatic Stepps? Siberia planes? Well before the the Russia Empire emerged as a political force?

1) It's exceptionally unclear exactly what kind of time frame you are talking about.
2) Time frame in general is not relevant to the concept of power, because one year of war can easily reverse 100 years of economic development, and if nations lose wars, they lose a lot of power.

The Monguls barely entered Europe, where centers like teh Caroligian Empire offered a countering force of strength and ability. The Monguls flowed through almost nothing, save China. When they did hit a center of political/economic resistance -- they were halted. That would be the Middle East.

In proof of point, the Hoardes great destructive powers wrecked havoc, but the extension of Empire was stopped when it hit a serious economic counter weight. True to form, the Hoard was defeated, and, lacking the charismatic leadership of the Khan, witered and died to the point that even the Chinese threw off the Mongul oppression.

The extension of the empire stopped when Genghis Khan died, and succession difficulties led to the end of Mongolian expansion and to a period of consolidation.

Did the Mongols lose battles? Sure, but not many.

Mongolia's econmic forecs were at best, the equal of then other economic centers in the world.

Dear lord, you really are making this argument, aren't you? Describe what exactly you mean by "economy" when you make a statement like this.

Myself, I will equate economy in that time period to calories produced, which affords specialization into other fields, such as weapon-smithing. Any agrarian society per acre of territory under its possession would thus have an economy orders of magnitude larger than any pastoral society, an assertion supported by massively larger population densities as well.

And certainly superior to the isolated Asiatic Stepp regions it conqured. Saying the Monguls conqured the known world is simple false. They failed to conqure India, the Middle East/Persia, and Europe. They, at best, temporarily subsummed China, and an empty grass land empire. In time, the economic realities of China returned Mongolia to its subserviant position where it was for for generations before the Khan and remains for a thousand years after the Khan.

1) Genghis Khan conquered Persia. I really do not understand your assertion that the Mongols did not conquer the Middle East, unless you're referring to Egypt.

2) The rest of your assertion is the result of Genghis Khan's death and the succession struggles following it.

Other than an expensive and bloody blaze of glory, what exactly did Mongolia gain by it 'superior' generals? That they still cling to this image of martial glory rather than fixating on fundamental changes to economy? That is a steep price indeed.

That's not what this particular portion of this discussion is about. This part is about whether or not an economy makes a nation powerful. The answer is ridiculously simple...it's the military.

For example, China up to Mao lost every single military engagement it had since contact with the West, which led to a collapse in its economy and a disintegration of its polity. The West won every single military engagement it had with non-Western societies, which led to startling economic growth under colonial and mercantilist policies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:38:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 4:25:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:


1) It's exceptionally unclear exactly what kind of time frame you are talking about.
2) Time frame in general is not relevant to the concept of power, because one year of war can easily reverse 100 years of economic development, and if nations lose wars, they lose a lot of power.


That is where you are wrong. And your scenario proves it. Russia, or what would become Russia lost to the Great Khan. With the death of the Khan and adoption of the battlefield tactics (which is inevitable), the Mongolians were returned to their stature as a backwater.

Again, what did the Mongolians gain from all their martial glory? The answer? Nothing.

That's not what this particular portion of this discussion is about. This part is about whether or not an economy makes a nation powerful. The answer is ridiculously simple...it's the military.

That furthermore, is simply a statement of faith. What does it take to create a military?

How much does a tank cost? A fighter plane? A stealth bomber? What is the R&D costof producing a stealth advantage for example? How about the gas to fuel them? The crew to man and maintain them? The industrial capacity to keep them moving and replacing battle damage? That requires a firm and sound financial and economic basis. The economy is the generator of military forces - particularly in the industrial age.

Are general important? Sure. They can very capably shoot their way into a fight. Then what? Well, then we need something more than the military as our recent experience suggests.

But look at the larger trends and see for yourself.

Did Germany win either WWI or WWII? And yet they are arguably the dominant European force today ... with a pacifistic society.

Russia lost WWI and won WWII? What does that mean?

Why, 30 years ago, was China ignored? Now ... its a credible military threat why?

Have wars fundamentally altered the reality of geo-political forces? Mongolia? Has it stunted the long term growth of Chinese regional domination? Or was it subserviant before and after the Khan? Has Europe, even in the dark ages, ever really been just a cake walk? The Middle East? India? Has the Arab-Persia divide been eradicated despite period of both Persin and Arab domination of their rival?

Are there historical shatterzones? The Balkans? The Levant? The Hindu Kush that reflect the historical realities of the economic forces behind them crush of empire? Yep.

What matters is governance and teh ability to utilize the economic forces to generate power - and the proper utilization of generated power is not military. Its diplomatic, economic, information/intelligence, and military.

Having generals who are very good at killing and who lack geo-political understanding is a great way to fester and watse your advantages. Witness the Hapsburg Empire.

Simply put, a strong military can get you quick and decisive victories when they are allayed againt tangible and beneficial economic and political goals. But if you set off in the Clausewitizan destruction of your adversary - you enemy will generate forces to fight you. That is the reality of German invasion of Russia. Great Generals mated to poor policy resulted in utter failure - precisely because the array of forces against Germany could produced tanks, fighters, bombers, artillery, ships, and men to employ them faster than the German could. Once you begin destroying your enemy faster than he can replace himself, and he cannot inflict similar levels of damage on you? The end is neigh. Generals can only delay or advance the impending reality.

A couple of other classic examples:

The South in the US Civil War.

Hannibal and Rome.

The French occupation of German between the wars.

The Japanese invasion(s) of China.

A 'permanent' military is a short term tool. Its a political tool, and its should be confined to situations of stability and quick political victories. Outside that? Its hubris to believe you can simply dominate (especially on the cheap), and when you become enamored with your own snake oil ... when you believe that you can just crush your enemy into abandoning his cause? Well, that is a hubris that has created many a military disater.

The military can push a political boundary, but only proper policy and economic realities can incoprate that conquest into a productive enabler rather than a permenant drain on resources (think Palestine), are political an economic.

In fact, Israel demonstrates the reality. For all its military might, what sustain Isarel is a fundamentally better economic basis that allows it to maintain a qualitative edge over the demographic realities of the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel lives with an almost permenant exestential fear, because its military cannot fundamentally alter the stratgetic reality around it. It cannot occupy further Arab territory, and the occupies Palestine is a constant drain and source of worry.

And what happens when the Middle East emerges from its current chaos? With battle hardened forces whose coffers are replensihed contiually by the regions the oil wealth? With tactics battle proven and capable of withstanding traditional Western might?

Is Hezbollah's ability to halt Israeli incursions after decades of conflict really a surprse?

Or is this the unfolding realities of attritional war over time?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 9:20:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:38:59 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 4:25:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Again, what did the Mongolians gain from all their martial glory? The answer? Nothing.

What did ANY ancient civilization gain from any of their actions? Nothing, they are all gone. This does not support your argument. Rome gained as much as the Mongols from their successes, i.e. nothing.

The point is, what leads to power? The answer is the military, supported by good leadership and the economy to varying degrees. Not the other way around.

That's not what this particular portion of this discussion is about. This part is about whether or not an economy makes a nation powerful. The answer is ridiculously simple...it's the military.

That furthermore, is simply a statement of faith. What does it take to create a military?

How much does a tank cost? A fighter plane? A stealth bomber? What is the R&D costof producing a stealth advantage for example? How about the gas to fuel them? The crew to man and maintain them? The industrial capacity to keep them moving and replacing battle damage? That requires a firm and sound financial and economic basis. The economy is the generator of military forces - particularly in the industrial age.

How large of an economy did it take to raise the Mongolian army? Next to none.

Are general important? Sure. They can very capably shoot their way into a fight. Then what? Well, then we need something more than the military as our recent experience suggests.

I'm not making that advocacy. IMHO generals are not primal to military success either...they are just a contributor.

But look at the larger trends and see for yourself.

Did Germany win either WWI or WWII? And yet they are arguably the dominant European force today ... with a pacifistic society.

Germany doesn't dominate anything other than economic numbers which are only there because America allows them to be there. It's no coincidence that Germany is the economic power and that we wrote Germany's constitution.

Russia lost WWI and won WWII? What does that mean?

It means that Russia gained power following WWII, and was a basket-case after WWI.

Why, 30 years ago, was China ignored? Now ... its a credible military threat why?

Why is Russia a far larger military threat given its infinitesimal economy vis a vis the US and China?

Why does the military threat matter far more than economic dominance?

Have wars fundamentally altered the reality of geo-political forces? Mongolia? Has it stunted the long term growth of Chinese regional domination? Or was it subserviant before and after the Khan? Has Europe, even in the dark ages, ever really been just a cake walk? The Middle East? India? Has the Arab-Persia divide been eradicated despite period of both Persin and Arab domination of their rival?

Wars have fundamentally altered geopolitical reality - to think otherwise is ridiculous. Mongolia stunted the long term trajectory of Chinese domination. That's the best way to explain how China was unseated from being the premier world economy into a basket-case civilization following Mongol conquest and Western pre-eminence. It also explains why the West dominated Eurasian politics, and how the beginning of this domination coincided with the Mongolian invasions.

Internecine wars in Europe allowed for a 1) global, non-Western resurgence in the face of colonialism, and 2) the primacy of the US's position. It materially weakened Europe's position vis a vis the rest of the world, especially compared to America.

If you're arguing that wars do not fundamentally alter the long term picture of world history, you're making a losing argument.

Are there historical shatterzones? The Balkans? The Levant? The Hindu Kush that reflect the historical realities of the economic forces behind them crush of empire? Yep.

What matters is governance and teh ability to utilize the economic forces to generate power - and the proper utilization of generated power is not military. Its diplomatic, economic, information/intelligence, and military.

I agree with the underlined, which does not support your argument that it's primarily dependent upon the economy. A distinct military advantage can easily trump a prodigious economic advantage, and the economy need not be the reason for the military advantage.

In fact, your arguments about economy are incoherent when it comes to historical analysis, and you've dropped the point that the Mongols did not have an economy to speak of and still accomplished transcontinental empire. You've dropped that the Mongols conquered multiple civilizations, and have dropped Mongolian conquest of Persia. If you drop these, the rest of your arguments only apply to the modern era, and do not describe historical reality.

A couple of other classic examples:

The South in the US Civil War.

Hannibal and Rome.

The French occupation of German between the wars.

The Japanese invasion(s) of China.

It only takes one case to disprove your assertion, and the Mongols are that case.

A 'permanent' military is a short term tool. Its a political tool, and its should be confined to situations of stability and quick political victories. Outside that? Its hubris to believe you can simply dominate (especially on the cheap), and when you become enamored with your own snake oil ... when you believe that you can just crush your enemy into abandoning his cause? Well, that is a hubris that has created many a military disater.

If you eliminate your enemy completely, you can achieve this. Carthage was burned to the ground and its lands salted. The Mongols killed 75% of the Iranian population when it conquered Persia, and some people think that even today's modern population in Iran is less than it was before Genghis Khan.

The Mongols killed nearly half the Chinese population, by some estimates over 30 million people died in China alone due to the Mongolian incursions. The Mongolian civilization itself under Genghis Khan numbered less than a million.

The military can push a political boundary, but only proper policy and economic realities can incoprate that conquest into a productive enabler rather than a permenant drain on resources (think Palestine), are political an economic.

In fact, Israel demonstrates the reality. For all its military might, what sustain Isarel is a fundamentally better economic basis that allows it to maintain a qualitative edge over the demographic realities of the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel lives with an almost permenant exestential fear, because its military cannot fundamentally alter the stratgetic reality around it. It cannot occupy further Arab territory, and the occupies Palestine is a constant drain and source of worry.

What sustains Israel is 1) zeal, and 2) an American alliance, and nothing more.

And what happens when the Middle East emerges from its current chaos? With battle hardened forces whose coffers are replensihed contiually by the regions the oil wealth? With tactics battle proven and capable of withstanding traditional Western might?

It will have a population and economy a fraction of the size of its neighbors. Your modern analysis of the primacy of the economy I generally do agree with, and the Middle East is hopelessly overpowered here.

Is Hezbollah's ability to halt Israeli incursions after decades of conflict really a surprse?

Or is this the unfolding realities of attritional war over time?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 3:54:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 4:25:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
That's not what this particular portion of this discussion is about. This part is about whether or not an economy makes a nation powerful. The answer is ridiculously simple...it's the military.

For example, China up to Mao lost every single military engagement it had since contact with the West, which led to a collapse in its economy and a disintegration of its polity. The West won every single military engagement it had with non-W

You are avoiding the main crux of the argument.

How much does a tank cost? A fighter? A Bomber? The R&D to develop new capabilities to over match your opponent? To maintain a qualitative capability by systemic upgrade of fielded forces? A training base for these services? Ports for ships to repair? The parts to keep it all going? The pay to crew and maange it all?

Right is ludicriously expensive. How do you afford this without a strong economy that is capable of absording this incredible fiscal burden? Yeah, its the economy.

So lets examine the strategic realities.

#1 - The US, as fiscal realities set in, as the destruction of WWII is eradicated and the major production centers of the world industrialize and leve the playing field, can the US afford to indefinitely expend more money on its military than then next ten largest countries combined?

The answer is no.

As some point as others, like China, grow their economy, the expense of the military begins to act as a boat achor, as projects that drive National Economic growth, like infastructure and education, R&D, exploration, etc. are cut to maintian 'strategic' dominance - a task that our economy - no longer solely dominate - cannot shoulder indefinitely. Cooperative arrangements and burden sharing in cost and maintaining of strategic stability to maintain ecocomic order are a priority. China has as much interest in maintain trade lanes, etc. as we do - and we need not fear them developing the capability to do so. We should invite it.

#2 - You speak of China. Yet there is a simple reality that you miss. China was pre-industrial when the West came knocking. Our strategic advamntage lasted only as long as China mainatined an outdated economic system.

Japan, from Comodore Parry, to their dominance of Asia, shows the economic and military advantages of the adoption of Industrial principles. China lagged behind. But even as parts of China were carved up by the West, and eventually siezed by Japan, China was never conqured. Pockets of resistance continued right up to the bitter end. All of the expenditure of Western might, the duplicity of the Opium War, has accomplished little save engender massive distrust of Western intentions in rising power.

And when the obvious occured? When China adopted the principles of the Industrial Revolution? China is clearly a regionally dominant force now, as it is when its economic potential is fully utilized. Its military is no longer a peasent force, its rapidly closing the technology gap with the US (its always easy to copy rather than develop), and its ability to support and sustain this capable military prescence is robust.

That we have a military? So? If we go to war, will these fundamental economic realities be changed by anything short of a nuclear exchange? That our Generals on both sides would produce both genius and duds matters how?

There are fundamental forces at play here, less subject to whims of individual genius than they areto the realities of economics.

As the OP states, Hilter was the worst. He is the one that deliberately created a coalition of forces whose ability to stamp out, guns, tanks, artillery, planes, ships, and bullets dwarfed Germany's ability to destroy them fast enough to achieve victory. It was mathematical, and the often genius manuevering of the German military did little but delay the inevitable.

By the end, the reality of economics was obvious. Thousand bomber raids with nary a fighter to fly against the allies. Tens of thousands of tanks crushing along the Easter Front, with an ever decreasing number of Tiger Tanks to stop them. It doesn't take a genius to win under those circumstances. Even with genuises on ther German side, the economic fundamentals required the miraculous, not just the exceptional.

The military is a reflection of fundamental economic health. Without the later, its just a paper tiger.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:09:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 3:54:04 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 4:25:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
That's not what this particular portion of this discussion is about. This part is about whether or not an economy makes a nation powerful. The answer is ridiculously simple...it's the military.

For example, China up to Mao lost every single military engagement it had since contact with the West, which led to a collapse in its economy and a disintegration of its polity. The West won every single military engagement it had with non-W

You are avoiding the main crux of the argument.

How much does a tank cost? A fighter? A Bomber? The R&D to develop new capabilities to over match your opponent? To maintain a qualitative capability by systemic upgrade of fielded forces? A training base for these services? Ports for ships to repair? The parts to keep it all going? The pay to crew and maange it all?

Right is ludicriously expensive. How do you afford this without a strong economy that is capable of absording this incredible fiscal burden? Yeah, its the economy.

[etc]

The military is a reflection of fundamental economic health. Without the later, its just a paper tiger.

This has all already been refuted and confined only to the modern paradigm, where industrial capacity directly translates to military veracity.

You have ignored completely and totally mischaracterized the Mongolian example and how a nation without an economy to speak of destroyed some of the most robust economies of their time, and you have also ignored how military results directly impact economic outcomes, as opposed to the other way around...otherwise China would have defeated the West at first contact, but it didn't.

I do not understand why you keep making the same argument when that argument has been addressed and refuted.

Given that there is no forward progress in this conversation, I suppose it ends here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:17:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:09:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:54:04 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 4:25:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
That's not what this particular portion of this discussion is about. This part is about whether or not an economy makes a nation powerful. The answer is ridiculously simple...it's the military.

For example, China up to Mao lost every single military engagement it had since contact with the West, which led to a collapse in its economy and a disintegration of its polity. The West won every single military engagement it had with non-W

You are avoiding the main crux of the argument.

How much does a tank cost? A fighter? A Bomber? The R&D to develop new capabilities to over match your opponent? To maintain a qualitative capability by systemic upgrade of fielded forces? A training base for these services? Ports for ships to repair? The parts to keep it all going? The pay to crew and maange it all?

Right is ludicriously expensive. How do you afford this without a strong economy that is capable of absording this incredible fiscal burden? Yeah, its the economy.

[etc]

The military is a reflection of fundamental economic health. Without the later, its just a paper tiger.

This has all already been refuted and confined only to the modern paradigm, where industrial capacity directly translates to military veracity.

You have ignored completely and totally mischaracterized the Mongolian example and how a nation without an economy to speak of destroyed some of the most robust economies of their time, and you have also ignored how military results directly impact economic outcomes, as opposed to the other way around...otherwise China would have defeated the West at first contact, but it didn't.

I do not understand why you keep making the same argument when that argument has been addressed and refuted.

Given that there is no forward progress in this conversation, I suppose it ends here.

Actually, I have addressed the point many times.

Mongolia, under the Khan, was able to generate the economic cohesion to generate a horse Army. That was further refined and supported by the ONE major economic center that the Khan did capture - China. That is how he keep his swords sharp, manufacturing basis etc.

On the contrary to your 'swept the known world' claim, the simple fact of the matter is that the hoard skipped India entirely, clashed brutally in the Middle East - and ultimately LOST, and barely began to touch the economic center of Europe before the entire 'Empire' collapsed under the total inability to sustain the far flung advance.

You keep saying that the Mongolian system changed the world, when the reality is that, absent the Khans cult like charisma, China quickly restored its autonomy, and Mongolia was returned to is back water status.

Other than a violent, blood soaked, path of murder - what did this 'generaliship' gain for Mongolia or the world?

And this is the fundamental issue here - a romantic view of 'glory' in which butchery and death are lionized as strength, when the reality is that all the butchery and death did absolutely nothing to alter the fundamental realities of the world.

Nations that are strong are strong precisely because they have strong economies. When they employ policies that realize that potential they prosper and are strong. When they engage in cryonism and corruption, when the exlpoit the wealth of the Nation for for an elite or an aristocracy, the Nation collapses - a collapse that can only be reversed by realigning reality with economic reality.

The notion that strength comes from a blood soaked sword simply ignores the attritional realities the ground the Mongolians to a stop in the Middle East centuries ago, and has only been heightened by the industrial realities that have made the attritional processes ever more dehumanized and mechanical.

Generals are necessary, but they, at best, can only delay or speed the realities of the underlying fundamentals. Its economic.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:24:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:17:36 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:09:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I do not understand why you keep making the same argument when that argument has been addressed and refuted.

Given that there is no forward progress in this conversation, I suppose it ends here.

Actually, I have addressed the point many times.

Mongolia, under the Khan, was able to generate the economic cohesion to generate a horse Army. That was further refined and supported by the ONE major economic center that the Khan did capture - China. That is how he keep his swords sharp, manufacturing basis etc.

And I will ask you again to describe what you consider to be an economy, and to compare it to other economies, and then try to tell me that economy is the central determining factor in warfare.

You're making an asinine point, but I suppose it would stand to see if you have any modicum of reasoning for it.

On the contrary to your 'swept the known world' claim, the simple fact of the matter is that the hoard skipped India entirely, clashed brutally in the Middle East - and ultimately LOST, and barely began to touch the economic center of Europe before the entire 'Empire' collapsed under the total inability to sustain the far flung advance.

They didn't lose in the Middle East, Genghis Khan conquered Persia (despite your claims otherwise).

You keep saying that the Mongolian system changed the world, when the reality is that, absent the Khans cult like charisma, China quickly restored its autonomy, and Mongolia was returned to is back water status.

China lost its position as the leader of the civilized world, and has yet to gain it back.

Other than a violent, blood soaked, path of murder - what did this 'generaliship' gain for Mongolia or the world?

And what did Rome's conquests gain for Rome? Latin is a dead language, Rome is nothing but ancient history, same as Mongolia.

I've already made this point. I don't understand why you keep bringing up points that have already been refuted.

And this is the fundamental issue here - a romantic view of 'glory' in which butchery and death are lionized as strength, when the reality is that all the butchery and death did absolutely nothing to alter the fundamental realities of the world.

Nations that are strong are strong precisely because they have strong economies. When they employ policies that realize that potential they prosper and are strong. When they engage in cryonism and corruption, when the exlpoit the wealth of the Nation for for an elite or an aristocracy, the Nation collapses - a collapse that can only be reversed by realigning reality with economic reality.

Disproved by the Mongols.

The notion that strength comes from a blood soaked sword simply ignores the attritional realities the ground the Mongolians to a stop in the Middle East centuries ago, and has only been heightened by the industrial realities that have made the attritional processes ever more dehumanized and mechanical.

This has already been refuted. The Mongols stopped because 1) Genghis Khan died, succession struggles, etc, and 2) The Mongols destroyed their own civilization by adopting others'

Generals are necessary, but they, at best, can only delay or speed the realities of the underlying fundamentals. Its economic.

The underlying fundamentals are military veracity. Generalship and economics are contributors. It simply doesn't work the other way around.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:30:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:24:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:17:36 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:09:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I do not understand why you keep making the same argument when that argument has been addressed and refuted.

Given that there is no forward progress in this conversation, I suppose it ends here.

Actually, I have addressed the point many times.

Mongolia, under the Khan, was able to generate the economic cohesion to generate a horse Army. That was further refined and supported by the ONE major economic center that the Khan did capture - China. That is how he keep his swords sharp, manufacturing basis etc.

And I will ask you again to describe what you consider to be an economy, and to compare it to other economies, and then try to tell me that economy is the central determining factor in warfare.

You're making an asinine point, but I suppose it would stand to see if you have any modicum of reasoning for it.

On the contrary to your 'swept the known world' claim, the simple fact of the matter is that the hoard skipped India entirely, clashed brutally in the Middle East - and ultimately LOST, and barely began to touch the economic center of Europe before the entire 'Empire' collapsed under the total inability to sustain the far flung advance.

They didn't lose in the Middle East, Genghis Khan conquered Persia (despite your claims otherwise).

You keep saying that the Mongolian system changed the world, when the reality is that, absent the Khans cult like charisma, China quickly restored its autonomy, and Mongolia was returned to is back water status.

China lost its position as the leader of the civilized world, and has yet to gain it back.

Other than a violent, blood soaked, path of murder - what did this 'generaliship' gain for Mongolia or the world?

And what did Rome's conquests gain for Rome? Latin is a dead language, Rome is nothing but ancient history, same as Mongolia.

I've already made this point. I don't understand why you keep bringing up points that have already been refuted.

And this is the fundamental issue here - a romantic view of 'glory' in which butchery and death are lionized as strength, when the reality is that all the butchery and death did absolutely nothing to alter the fundamental realities of the world.

Nations that are strong are strong precisely because they have strong economies. When they employ policies that realize that potential they prosper and are strong. When they engage in cryonism and corruption, when the exlpoit the wealth of the Nation for for an elite or an aristocracy, the Nation collapses - a collapse that can only be reversed by realigning reality with economic reality.

Disproved by the Mongols.

The notion that strength comes from a blood soaked sword simply ignores the attritional realities the ground the Mongolians to a stop in the Middle East centuries ago, and has only been heightened by the industrial realities that have made the attritional processes ever more dehumanized and mechanical.

This has already been refuted. The Mongols stopped because 1) Genghis Khan died, succession struggles, etc, and 2) The Mongols destroyed their own civilization by adopting others'

Generals are necessary, but they, at best, can only delay or speed the realities of the underlying fundamentals. Its economic.

The underlying fundamentals are military veracity. Generalship and economics are contributors. It simply doesn't work the other way around.

No, he did not. The Persian Empire and its Arab holdings extended all the way into Egypt, which the hoard never touched. The combat was necessary brutal, but the fact remains that the hoard was halted - and reversed. That is just fact.

And what does Mongolia have to show for that brutal combat? The Persian was well after the Prophets unifying Islam in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, the Mongol Empire never got into the Middle East. Brutal combat produced nothing but death, and absent the charisma of the khan? The whole thing collapsed in short order.

What was gained? Not a damn thing.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:41:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:30:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:24:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The underlying fundamentals are military veracity. Generalship and economics are contributors. It simply doesn't work the other way around.

...The Persian Empire and its Arab holdings extended all the way into Egypt, which the hoard never touched. The combat was necessary brutal, but the fact remains that the hoard was halted - and reversed. That is just fact.

What constitutes "Persian" generally is "Greater Iran". At the time of Genghis Khan, the Khwarazmian dynasty ruled the vast majority of this region, and it was utterly destroyed by him.

Persia does not include Egypt...Egypt is Egypt.

And what does Mongolia have to show for that brutal combat? The Persian was well after the Prophets unifying Islam in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That picture is strangely inaccurate. It states in there that Genghis Khan died in 1227, yet it also states he conquered Persia by destroying Khwarezmia in 1221.

As you can see, the Mongol Empire never got into the Middle East. Brutal combat produced nothing but death, and absent the charisma of the khan? The whole thing collapsed in short order.

What was gained? Not a damn thing.

Again, what did Rome gain? What is Rome today? Nothing. Persia as an entity didn't even exist as Persia during Genghis Khan's time...it's more a geographic characteristic.

---

As it is, you've STILL yet to define what constitutes an economy for you. I've already defined it through caloric output, in which case the Mongols had little to no economy to speak of.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:53:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:36:18 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.toptenz.net...

I came across this, and couldn't help but have a chuckle... I agree with all of it, with the exception of Rommel.

Is this legit? Why isn't Stalin on it? Stalin sucked at commanding and managing armies.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
iheartNK
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 10:57:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 6:13:07 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Stalin got his @ss kicked to the Chinese.

I like the person who agree with me
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 1:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:41:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:30:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:24:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The underlying fundamentals are military veracity. Generalship and economics are contributors. It simply doesn't work the other way around.

...The Persian Empire and its Arab holdings extended all the way into Egypt, which the hoard never touched. The combat was necessary brutal, but the fact remains that the hoard was halted - and reversed. That is just fact.

What constitutes "Persian" generally is "Greater Iran". At the time of Genghis Khan, the Khwarazmian dynasty ruled the vast majority of this region, and it was utterly destroyed by him.

Persia does not include Egypt...Egypt is Egypt.

And what does Mongolia have to show for that brutal combat? The Persian was well after the Prophets unifying Islam in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That picture is strangely inaccurate. It states in there that Genghis Khan died in 1227, yet it also states he conquered Persia by destroying Khwarezmia in 1221.

As you can see, the Mongol Empire never got into the Middle East. Brutal combat produced nothing but death, and absent the charisma of the khan? The whole thing collapsed in short order.

What was gained? Not a damn thing.

Again, what did Rome gain? What is Rome today? Nothing. Persia as an entity didn't even exist as Persia during Genghis Khan's time...it's more a geographic characteristic.

---

As it is, you've STILL yet to define what constitutes an economy for you. I've already defined it through caloric output, in which case the Mongols had little to no economy to speak of.

Once again, your argument is mere denial and semantics. We are at the 'definition' stage rather than the acceptance of evidence. As the proof I provided indicates, NO MAJOR economic center was conquered by the Mongols - save China - who initially supported the Khan and then abandoned him upon his death.

When the Khan ran into a serious economic/political center, they were halted. Period. End of story.

And what did this great Crusade gain? The flash in the pan of glory and a bunch of death and destruction? So what? There is no lasting remnant of the 'Empire' which lasted all of one man's lifetime.

And yet, despite dozens of examples, including modern ones - you avoid them.

You continue to avoid the cost of armies and sustaining them, and indeed the modern context of a modern China, the SAME ENGIN that fueled the Khan's conquest 700 years ago.

How do you sustain an Army without an economy to pay for it? The simple answer is ... you don't. A little fact that no amount of definitional quibbling will change.

It is PRECISELY for this reason that the founding father's, deeply mistrustful of the military, were so reluctant to establish one, and instead laid the foundation of a economic order that ensured ... prosperity - not military dominance.

The military reflects power, it is not power ... and used poorly? That power can create more problems than it solves. The edge of the sword solve only one kind of problem, and it is the solution to prosperity - but far too often, its opposite.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 2:25:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:48:20 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:41:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:30:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:24:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The underlying fundamentals are military veracity. Generalship and economics are contributors. It simply doesn't work the other way around.

...The Persian Empire and its Arab holdings extended all the way into Egypt, which the hoard never touched. The combat was necessary brutal, but the fact remains that the hoard was halted - and reversed. That is just fact.

What constitutes "Persian" generally is "Greater Iran". At the time of Genghis Khan, the Khwarazmian dynasty ruled the vast majority of this region, and it was utterly destroyed by him.

Persia does not include Egypt...Egypt is Egypt.

And what does Mongolia have to show for that brutal combat? The Persian was well after the Prophets unifying Islam in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That picture is strangely inaccurate. It states in there that Genghis Khan died in 1227, yet it also states he conquered Persia by destroying Khwarezmia in 1221.

As you can see, the Mongol Empire never got into the Middle East. Brutal combat produced nothing but death, and absent the charisma of the khan? The whole thing collapsed in short order.

What was gained? Not a damn thing.

Again, what did Rome gain? What is Rome today? Nothing. Persia as an entity didn't even exist as Persia during Genghis Khan's time...it's more a geographic characteristic.

---

As it is, you've STILL yet to define what constitutes an economy for you. I've already defined it through caloric output, in which case the Mongols had little to no economy to speak of.

Once again, your argument is mere denial and semantics. We are at the 'definition' stage rather than the acceptance of evidence. As the proof I provided indicates, NO MAJOR economic center was conquered by the Mongols - save China - who initially supported the Khan and then abandoned him upon his death.

Again, you ignore Persia. This is getting repetitive. This has already been addressed 3 times so far.

When the Khan ran into a serious economic/political center, they were halted. Period. End of story.

Wrong. They conquered Persia in less than 2 years.

And what did this great Crusade gain? The flash in the pan of glory and a bunch of death and destruction? So what? There is no lasting remnant of the 'Empire' which lasted all of one man's lifetime.

Wrong again. At least Russia and India trace their modern origins to the Mongols.

And yet, despite dozens of examples, including modern ones - you avoid them.

I fully agree in the modern case economics is paramount to establishing a credible military. There's no argument there. Instead, you fully drop all of MY arguments, and continue to make false statements that belie utter ignorance of what I am telling you.

You continue to avoid the cost of armies and sustaining them, and indeed the modern context of a modern China, the SAME ENGIN that fueled the Khan's conquest 700 years ago.

Again, please tell me what "costs" Mongolians incurred when they had no economy to speak of. Please tell me how many people their civilization was able to support. Please tell me ANYTHING about the Mongols that can possibly support your view. You've had several opportunites, and you've wasted all of them.

How do you sustain an Army without an economy to pay for it? The simple answer is ... you don't. A little fact that no amount of definitional quibbling will change.

Yet the Mongols did, and you are wrong.

It is PRECISELY for this reason that the founding father's, deeply mistrustful of the military, were so reluctant to establish one, and instead laid the foundation of a economic order that ensured ... prosperity - not military dominance.

The military reflects power, it is not power ... and used poorly? That power can create more problems than it solves. The edge of the sword solve only one kind of problem, and it is the solution to prosperity - but far too often, its opposite.

The military IS power. Power used poorly is power used irresponsibly. The underlined corroborates my argument, and disproves your own argument that economics is primal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 2:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:53:49 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:18 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.toptenz.net...

I came across this, and couldn't help but have a chuckle... I agree with all of it, with the exception of Rommel.

Is this legit? Why isn't Stalin on it? Stalin sucked at commanding and managing armies.

Stalin was a terrible military leader, that's for sure. He wasn't worse than, I think, the top three on this list, though.