|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 18, 2012 8:37:39 GMT -6
You misidentified the museum, and I expressed an opinion based on the museum you stated, not the one you intended, and that it is or isn't a regarded institution is irrelevant. When you corrected it, I'll still stand behind my accusation, because what the article says the museum claims is garbage and the poll taken was garbage.
It's hard to contend the British Empire was mortally hurt when its great days were to come after losing the 13 southern colonies but keeping Canada. It's moronic to contend Napoleon was inferior to Washington on the field of battle. Virtually nobody was inferior to Washington, who was no great shakes, except he kept it together and he kept at it and apparently he could inspire his guys. Of course, not being a despot, he didn't have the power of his competitors to run things, obeying Congress as he did.
But without the French he could not have won at Yorktown and may not have won the war.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 18, 2012 9:32:21 GMT -6
The British Army Museum is a reputable institution.The depositary of artifacts and records of British military history and culture.My guess is that it is funded by grants from government and military sources.It would be protective of it's reputation and not given to foolishness. But as always you play for the cheap debating point rather than attempting to understand. The survey showed what a sample of British people thought were the greatest foes Britian had. It did not claim that the names decided upon were in fact the greatest foes but rather men who impressed themselves upon the British psychic as their greatest foes. An exercise such as this could not be definitive and does not claim to be.But the names thrown up by the survey are worthy contenders for the accolade if for no other reason than they were successful generals unlike your Napoleon who never had a victory against the British.[Quatre Bras being a draw]
But without the French he could not have won at Yorktown and may not have won the war. All Napoleon wanted to know about his commanders was were they lucky.It's swings and roundabouts.Judging generals is as scientific as judging a beauty contest.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 18, 2012 12:33:10 GMT -6
Pointing out your endless errors, idiocies, exaggerations are not cheap debating points. They're your endless errors, idiocies, and exaggerations.
The poll was on line, so you have no idea if it was limited to the British. Who is the British psychic? Did you mean psyche? Is that cheap?
Britain never faced Napoleon himself alone, did they? Quatre Bras was fought under Ney.
In any case, the winner of the idiotic poll was Washington, who lost most of his battles.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Apr 18, 2012 16:12:56 GMT -6
The vote on the website came out as follows:-
1. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (3,090)2. Michael Collins (2,787)3. Erwin Rommel (470)4. Napoleon Bonaparte (304)5. George Washington (139)
The poll started in February but when highlighted in Turkey, suddenly Ataturk got most votes, and then on St Patricks Day - lo and behold - Collins got lots of votes and took the lead.
The ultimate winner - was voted for by just 70 guests [probably a number of Americans], who paid to attend the day to hear the 5 x 40 minute presentations and vote in a secret ballot.
There were originally 20 names on the list put forward by the museum's curators, which was whittled down to the 5, and I would venture to suggest most non-military British people would never have heard of most of them, including Ataturk or Collins.
Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 18, 2012 17:35:31 GMT -6
Garbage. That may be too kind.
But all Wild cared about was Collins getting mentioned with some big boys and wild inflation of both importance and meaning ensued. Collins was apparently a greater threat than, say, the Dutch who sailed up the Thames and shelled London. Or the Romans. Or the Jacobites who actually invaded. Or Wallace who did so as well. Or the others previously mentioned.
Really? The Irish? Well, if Washington, why not?
|
|
|
Post by littlerain on Apr 18, 2012 17:51:41 GMT -6
were thir any Dakato ther it is said that they ran off the horsea , did they \]rurn off all the horse? in the tribur to ch at the end of the vido they had a spon that was how they dakato were tradeers. are the dakato part of the sioux
|
|
|
Post by littlerain on Apr 18, 2012 17:57:26 GMT -6
were thir dakayo who ran off the horse ? and how did they get other horse. on you tube tribute to ch they have a part in lacado that make fub of the Dakato why would they turn agaist thir own nation
|
|
|
Post by littlerain on Apr 18, 2012 17:58:12 GMT -6
were any crown scout killed at the greasy grass
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 18, 2012 18:43:27 GMT -6
Garbage. That may be too kind. But all Wild cared about was Collins getting mentioned with some big boys and wild inflation of both importance and meaning ensued. Collins was apparently a greater threat than, say, the Dutch who sailed up the Thames and shelled London. Or the Romans. Or the Jacobites who actually invaded. Or Wallace who did so as well. Or the others previously mentioned. Really? The Irish? Well, if Washington, why not? Just an observation. Washington was likely as good as his adversaries. The problem he had was a volunteer/militia army, i.e., untrained and some poor subordinates. He should have put on a better show at New York, despite its overall indefensibility, but for panic by the troops on one or two key occasions. Monmouth Courthouse should have been an overwhelming victory but for Lee's panic stricken retreat. I'm not saying Washington was the greatest general of all time but those who think he was incompetent need to refresh their memories by re-reading some American Revolution history Billy P.S. No, the loss of America was not the downfall of the British Empire!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 18, 2012 19:08:27 GMT -6
Billy: An observation on your observations;
Washington's Army on Long Island was indeed the rough an unready force that was placed in an untennible position with the East River to its back by George himself. Extremely bad form and worse disposition.
The Army of Monmouth Court House was an entirely different force, trained , matured, and seasoned. No question that they should have destroyed the Brits there, and I believe they would have were it not for inept generalship by Washington's subordinate (I can't remember the buggers name). Washington rides in sorts things out but what should have been a major thumping becomes a tweaked hindparts.
Two different armies though and I thought that should be pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 18, 2012 19:20:08 GMT -6
Nobody said Washington was incompetent, but he was no great shakes on the battlefield by results. He was a great man, if anyone was, and the French had no trouble agreeing to that. But he never threatened England or the Empire and that poll was moronic in every way.
I've probably told this before, but when Washington died, I think it was, a French diplomat was writing home and given a requested estimation of the first President. He wrote that Washington had been given complete military control of his nation four times. The Revolution, two terms as President, and once under John Adams for the Whiskey Rebellion. The diplomat noted that the most popular man in the country - possibly the world, actually - ALWAYS obeyed Congress and at the completion of each of the four periods when coup would have been both popular and easy, he returned power and command to his government. "Nothing more need be said," he wrote. I wish I could find the translation, because the palpable awe he held for Washington just leaps up.
Littlerain, you're incoherent and functionally illiterate. Readers shouldn't have to spend more time figuring out your posts than you do writing them. If you want to correspond, try a bit harder.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 18, 2012 19:25:08 GMT -6
Where was it when his officers wanted him to become a virtual dictator, he pulled out a pair of specs and apologised to his officers by saying somthing on the order of "My eyes have grown dim in the service of my country" and nothing further about military dominence was uttered thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 18, 2012 19:32:36 GMT -6
Yes, the Dakota are Sioux, one of three main branches of the Sioux. And many of the horses were run off, but not all. Many were killed-- maybe 70 or more.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 18, 2012 19:34:17 GMT -6
were any crown scout killed at the greasy grass No, but three Ree scouts were killed. Bloody Knife, Little Brave, and Bobtail-Bull. Best wishes, Fred. PS-- Sorry, but I changed this post. I originally mentioned these scouts as Crow; no excuse... just was not thinking. FCW
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 18, 2012 19:38:47 GMT -6
QC, great points. My only further contribution is that Washington, as well as his troops, were undergoing on-the-job training, unlike the professionals in the English army and the bulk of the Hessians.
I'm trying to remember but wasn't Long Island pretty much dictated by the need to fight for the largest city in the colonies?
Be good,
Billy
P.S. The wife fully recovered from her problems?
|
|