Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TonyK View Post
    I get it now...a full red bird beats an empty general and definitely trumps a blue bird.
    Man, now I am having a hard time with birds and generals. Good thing I don't have to worry about that stuff anymore. I love birds, usually didn't care for colonels, generals really didn't exist except when we needed to be bored to death by a speech or getting some big coins, and "birds" were my favorite part of working on British army posts. What was the question?
    "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
      Man, now I am having a hard time with birds and generals. Good thing I don't have to worry about that stuff anymore. I love birds, usually didn't care for colonels, generals really didn't exist except when we needed to be bored to death by a speech or getting some big coins, and "birds" were my favorite part of working on British army posts. What was the question?
      "Whose general is on first?"

      You don't see very many books written by colonels.
      "He's tougher than a railroad sandwich."
      "You'se Got The Eye Of An Eagle."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TonyK View Post
        "Whose general is on first?"

        You don't see very many books written by colonels.
        Yeah, I think they stick to chicken. It keeps Boggs happy, anyway. Eh, the world needs ditch-diggers too, right?
        "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TonyK View Post
          "Whose general is on first?"

          You don't see very many books written by colonels.
          Hmmm...Should I start a Colonel Klink vs Colonel Hogan thread?

          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • Oh yeah, the pickelhaube doesn't get nearly the amount of respect it deserves.
            "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
              Yeah, I think they stick to chicken. It keeps Boggs happy, anyway. Eh, the world needs ditch-diggers too, right?
              Richie Hebners.
              "He's tougher than a railroad sandwich."
              "You'se Got The Eye Of An Eagle."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TonyK View Post
                Richie Hebners.
                I have a book of baseball quotes around in one of my equipment bags, and it has a great quote from Hebner when he was a grave digger. It was something like, "I've buried people in better shape than me." Hilarious!
                "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                  Hmmm...Should I start a Colonel Klink vs Colonel Hogan thread?

                  Those Stalag helmets have a point.
                  "He's tougher than a railroad sandwich."
                  "You'se Got The Eye Of An Eagle."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                    I have a book of baseball quotes around in one of my equipment bags, and it has a great quote from Hebner when he was a grave digger. It was something like, "I've buried people in better shape than me." Hilarious!
                    My father knew his old man. My dad once got me a job at a chicken farm in MA, and when we drove up and smelled the stench, I refused to get out of the car.
                    "He's tougher than a railroad sandwich."
                    "You'se Got The Eye Of An Eagle."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                      I assume this is rhetorical. But they of course look at everything they can and weigh all the evidence, even from 2,300 years ago. The battle of Cannae (Hannibal) is considered brilliant and forced the Romans to completely revamp their military tactics. Hannibal himself had other campaigns and battles that nearly brought Rome to it's knees.

                      The point is that some historians examine all information as potentially useful as opposed to first arguing that everything was automatically false, worthless and to be censored if it didn't match modern day thoughts. One can always disregard things after one has good cause to do so. But some people start first with discarding, then when nothing is left, they use that as proof that it was right to discard in the first place.
                      I have a History major and love reading military history to this day. Without question, any good War College studies tactics and strategy, from all phases of history. But, if they were going to rank generals, it would just as subjective as these threads, despite efforts to quantify it (just like here.) If we didn't like ranking and players here, there wouldn't be many threads in this or the HOF section. There are many different ways of doing it here and that's cool. I've just made a choice to only rank and compare MLB players.

                      BTW, You are more than welcome to jump in our Relief Pitcher HOF voting. I'd love to read your thoughts on those guys. :balloon:
                      This week's Giant

                      #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                        I assume this is rhetorical. But they of course look at everything they can and weigh all the evidence, even from 2,300 years ago. The battle of Cannae (Hannibal) is considered brilliant and forced the Romans to completely revamp their military tactics. Hannibal himself had other campaigns and battles that nearly brought Rome to it's knees.

                        The point is that some historians examine all information as potentially useful as opposed to first arguing that everything was automatically false, worthless and to be censored if it didn't match modern day thoughts. One can always disregard things after one has good cause to do so. But some people start first with discarding, then when nothing is left, they use that as proof that it was right to discard in the first place.
                        Hannibal had a great plan for Cannae and deserves acclaim for it and the execution, but you've also gotta say the Romans were pretty stupid to fall for it so badly. The Romans had a huge problem in that their military leaders in the field were also their elected civil leaders, the two consuls. It was common for these men to be poor at military command and maybe even more common for them to not act in a coordinated way due to political or personal factors. Also, the consular terms would often end at inconvenient times and result in sudden strategic shifts that may or may not have made sense. Not unusual for the Romans to lose an army or two in a truly major conflict and then either A) elect competent military men as consuls or B)name a dictator with extraordinary powers to see them through the crisis.
                        (ignoring proconsular commands for simplicity)
                        "If I drink whiskey, I'll never get worms!" - Hack Wilson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dude Paskert View Post
                          Hannibal had a great plan for Cannae and deserves acclaim for it and the execution, but you've also gotta say the Romans were pretty stupid to fall for it so badly. The Romans had a huge problem in that their military leaders in the field were also their elected civil leaders, the two consuls. It was common for these men to be poor at military command and maybe even more common for them to not act in a coordinated way due to political or personal factors. Also, the consular terms would often end at inconvenient times and result in sudden strategic shifts that may or may not have made sense. Not unusual for the Romans to lose an army or two in a truly major conflict and then either A) elect competent military men as consuls or B)name a dictator with extraordinary powers to see them through the crisis.
                          (ignoring proconsular commands for simplicity)
                          Not disagreeing with you. I think your comments on the consuls is spot on. Certainly not too bright in how they let themselves get suckered into that battle.

                          One of the Roman's problems was also ingrained Roman strategy and independent of those leaders at the battle. Hannibal picked up on that in prior engagements. The Romans didn't divide their forces into small structural units the way they later did and in the way modern armies do. Their infantry was organized much like the Greek Phalanx---one large rectangular blob of infantry. Within the infantry there was no center, left or right: no units that could be ordered to hold, withdraw, rotate or attack, while other units did other operations. They had horse on the flanks but that was it.

                          Hannibal maneuvered them so that although the Romans had more troops, they couldn't out flank the Carthaginians. The consuls, then went for depth instead of breath, enabling Hannibal to envelop them with smaller forces. Brilliant.

                          As a result, when Hannibal drew them forward and then started his flanking maneuvers and destroyed the Roman horse, the Romans had no way to control their infantry forces: to order the flanks to rotate or to defend or even to order the center to halt the advance.
                          Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-19-2015, 01:32 PM.
                          "It's better to look good, than be good."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                            I have a History major and love reading military history to this day. Without question, any good War College studies tactics and strategy, from all phases of history. But, if they were going to rank generals, it would just as subjective as these threads, despite efforts to quantify it (just like here.) If we didn't like ranking and players here, there wouldn't be many threads in this or the HOF section. There are many different ways of doing it here and that's cool. I've just made a choice to only rank and compare MLB players.

                            I hear ya. My oldest son loves military history too and he surprises me with the level of knowledge he has on the subject (not from me mind you.) And I completely agree....ranking generals is subjective, but it's fun and no one seems too emotionally attached to any one general. Maybe that's the problem---some of us (me included) take this ranking a little too seriously.
                            "It's better to look good, than be good."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                              I hear ya. My oldest son loves military history too and he surprises me with the level of knowledge he has on the subject (not from me mind you.) And I completely agree....ranking generals is subjective, but it's fun and no one seems too emotionally attached to any one general. Maybe that's the problem---some of us (me included) take this ranking a little too seriously.
                              Post of the Day!!!!!!

                              Also many of the legendary military leaders in history lived centuries ago. When have no film or photos of them to connect us to them in a personal way the way we connect with baseball players.

                              As a kid I was really drawn to Spartacus mainly due the the 1960 film staring Kirk Douglas ("I am Spartacus!"). Then in college I discovered that the earliest historical documents referencing Spartacus was something like four centuries after his death.
                              Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 02-19-2015, 05:09 PM.
                              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                              Comment


                              • Taking Park f/x into account, Belisarius' WAR total was really impressive. Traded Rome a few times too much and was put on the dl by the Bubonic Plague, but you can't have everything. Plus having Theodora as an Owner--

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X