|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 8, 2019 10:27:38 GMT
You think? I thought he did quite well. I always thought the Sicilian disaster was more Nicias' fault. It's been years since I studied it, but as I recall Athens got the better of Sparta for the first 1/3 of the war, and for the second 1/3 a cease-fire was observed, then Alcibiades talked the Athenians into the expedition in Sicily. Perhaps it was Nicias' fault that Syracuse was not conquered, but Alcibiades defected to the Spartan side and let Nicias face the music. The last 1/3 of the war went very badly for Athens from that point. Of course, there may be other factors that I am not aware of.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 8, 2019 10:58:40 GMT
You think? I thought he did quite well. I always thought the Sicilian disaster was more Nicias' fault. It's been years since I studied it, but as I recall Athens got the better of Sparta for the first 1/3 of the war, and for the second 1/3 a cease-fire was observed, then Alcibiades talked the Athenians into the expedition in Sicily. Perhaps it was Nicias' fault that Syracuse was not conquered, but Alcibiades defected to the Spartan side and let Nicias face the music. The last 1/3 of the war went very badly for Athens from that point. Of course, there may be other factors that I am not aware of. Yeah there's some truth to that. In fairness though, Alcibiades didn't defect to let Nicias face the music, he was arrested for mutilation of the Hermai (a crime of which most historians consider him likely innocent) which would have left Nicias in command anyway (there was a third general Lamachus, but he was generally overruled by the more influential Nicias and Alcibiades). So he had a choice between being sentenced in Athens or escaping and defecting to Sparta. Once he had defected he aided the Syracusans against the Athenians. Politically he was a snake, but as a military commander he generally did pretty well. Sparta's success in the final stages of the war was probably more due to their alliance with Persia than Alcibiades. As for whether the Sicilian Expedition was a good idea in the first place, I suppose hindsight is 20-20. If it had worked, it probably would have greatly expanded the Athenian Empire beyond the modest Delian League since it would have allowed Athens a secure base to take on Carthage. Nicias was the last person who should have been put in charge of it though - he was against it from the start and was an overly cautious commander, unsuitable for a campaign where he would be outnumbered. Had Alcibiades or Lamachus been the sole commander, it probably could have gone better.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 8, 2019 11:08:48 GMT
It's been years since I studied it, but as I recall Athens got the better of Sparta for the first 1/3 of the war, and for the second 1/3 a cease-fire was observed, then Alcibiades talked the Athenians into the expedition in Sicily. Perhaps it was Nicias' fault that Syracuse was not conquered, but Alcibiades defected to the Spartan side and let Nicias face the music. The last 1/3 of the war went very badly for Athens from that point. Of course, there may be other factors that I am not aware of. Yeah there's some truth to that. In fairness though, Alcibiades didn't defect to let Nicias face the music, he was arrested for mutilation of the Hermai (a crime of which most historians consider him likely innocent) which would have left Nicias in command anyway (there was a third general Lamachus, but he was generally overruled by the more influential Nicias and Alcibiades). So he had a choice between being sentenced in Athens or escaping and defecting to Sparta. Once he had defected he aided the Syracusans against the Athenians. Politically he was a snake, but as a military commander he generally did pretty well. Sparta's success in the final stages of the war was probably more due to their alliance with Persia than Alcibiades. As for whether the Sicilian Expedition was a good idea in the first place, I suppose hindsight is 20-20. If it had worked, it probably would have greatly expanded the Athenian Empire beyond the modest Delian League since it would have allowed Athens a secure base to take on Carthage. Nicias was the last person who should have been put in charge of it though - he was against it from the start and was an overly cautious commander, unsuitable for a campaign where he would be outnumbered. Had Alcibiades or Lamachus been the sole commander, it probably could have gone better. Can't argue with any of that. I find it interesting that the Persians, after losing to the Hellenes in two wars, continued to meddle in Hellenistic affairs. Got to wonder what their motivation was.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 8, 2019 11:18:18 GMT
And there's Adolf Hitler of course. Worst military leader in history, but too many blunders to mention here. First... Adolf Hitler wasn't a "general"... Sure he made some mistakes But, I won't say that he was the " worst military leader in history"... Many historians think his Army was close to being able to take over the world... and if they had created the atomic bomb, first, we would all be speaking German right now! What other Army has ever came so close? The German army never had the capacity to conquer the world. Hell they were never even close of conquering Britain... The Reichmarine was a joke compared the Royal Navy and the United States Navy... How were the German armed forces supposed to conquer overseas territories without a navy?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 8, 2019 11:21:33 GMT
Yeah there's some truth to that. In fairness though, Alcibiades didn't defect to let Nicias face the music, he was arrested for mutilation of the Hermai (a crime of which most historians consider him likely innocent) which would have left Nicias in command anyway (there was a third general Lamachus, but he was generally overruled by the more influential Nicias and Alcibiades). So he had a choice between being sentenced in Athens or escaping and defecting to Sparta. Once he had defected he aided the Syracusans against the Athenians. Politically he was a snake, but as a military commander he generally did pretty well. Sparta's success in the final stages of the war was probably more due to their alliance with Persia than Alcibiades. As for whether the Sicilian Expedition was a good idea in the first place, I suppose hindsight is 20-20. If it had worked, it probably would have greatly expanded the Athenian Empire beyond the modest Delian League since it would have allowed Athens a secure base to take on Carthage. Nicias was the last person who should have been put in charge of it though - he was against it from the start and was an overly cautious commander, unsuitable for a campaign where he would be outnumbered. Had Alcibiades or Lamachus been the sole commander, it probably could have gone better. Can't argue with any of that. I find it interesting that the Persians, after losing to the Hellenes in two wars, continued to meddle in Hellenistic affairs. Got to wonder what their motivation was. Tribute and power I guess. They lost the cities of Asia Minor after their second invasion, but Sparta handed them back in exchange for a war fleet to use against Athens.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 8, 2019 11:23:46 GMT
First... Adolf Hitler wasn't a "general"... Sure he made some mistakes But, I won't say that he was the " worst military leader in history"... Many historians think his Army was close to being able to take over the world... and if they had created the atomic bomb, first, we would all be speaking German right now! What other Army has ever came so close? OK, he didn't have the rank of General. Neither did Frederick the Great or Gustavus Adolphus. But he was the overall commander and did make all the key decisions. And, the more Hitler had his hands on a military decision, the worse it turned out. Dunkirk, Stalingrad, Kursk , Normandy etc, etc, etc. Nazi Germany did come close, despite Hitler. It had superior armaments, superior men and superior battlefield generals. If Hitler had kept out of major battlefield decisions, the war might have turned out differently. The Nazi came close due to Kesselring, Manstein, Guderian, Model, Rommel. The Panzer IV, V and VI, The 88's. The panzerschreck and panzerfaust. And as far as the bomb, we would have had one too. And Germany could never get one to the US. Moscow and London might have been obliterated, but never NY and Washington. And Germany would have been a parking lot. Dunkirk was a mistake but Hitler had good reasons for it. He assumed that sparing the lives of British soldiers would have helped in a peace treaty between the UK and Germany and there was a chance of a peace treaty if Winston Churchill didn't became Prime minister. Hitler knew there was no real chance of Germany invading the British islands so he wanted to make peace with the UK in order to focus on Russia. The Normandy invasion happened in Germany was already loosing and the defeat was inevitable. They never really had a chance. Even if the Normandy invasion failed, that wasn't going to stop the Russians from reaching Berlin.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 8, 2019 11:34:00 GMT
OK, he didn't have the rank of General. Neither did Frederick the Great or Gustavus Adolphus. But he was the overall commander and did make all the key decisions. And, the more Hitler had his hands on a military decision, the worse it turned out. Dunkirk, Stalingrad, Kursk , Normandy etc, etc, etc. Nazi Germany did come close, despite Hitler. It had superior armaments, superior men and superior battlefield generals. If Hitler had kept out of major battlefield decisions, the war might have turned out differently. The Nazi came close due to Kesselring, Manstein, Guderian, Model, Rommel. The Panzer IV, V and VI, The 88's. The panzerschreck and panzerfaust. And as far as the bomb, we would have had one too. And Germany could never get one to the US. Moscow and London might have been obliterated, but never NY and Washington. And Germany would have been a parking lot. Dunkirk was a mistake but Hitler had good reasons for it. He assumed that sparing the lives of British soldiers would have helped in a peace treaty between the UK and Germany and there was a chance of a peace treaty if Winston Churchill didn't became Prime minister. Hitler knew there was no real chance of Germany invading the British islands so he wanted to make peace with the UK in order to focus on Russia. The Normandy invasion happened in Germany was already loosing and the defeat was inevitable. They never really had a chance. Even if the Normandy invasion failed, that wasn't going to stop the Russians from reaching Berlin. I never heard that before. What I heard was that Goering convinced Hitler that the lives of German soldiers could be saved on the ground by demolishing the BEF with air attacks. Did not work. And two years later Goering blew it again by convincing Hitler that von Paulus's Sixth Army could be resupplied by air at Stalingrad. That one didn't work either.
|
|