It was a bad idea because of the way Napoleon handled his logistics. The average soldier in his army didn't carry more than a day's worth of food, and no tents. It let them move fast and light, kept them more flexible for most of Napoleons battles. In most of Europe, you can get away with this since it's generally pleasent weather, and you can take or buy what you need to eat. Russia is God's hellhole, especially in winter, where his traditional logistics could not, and did not work. It was only a matter of time before attrition nailed him to a wall, and sent him packing.
Yes, it's ironic, most of his army starved and succumbed to disease, and I think he's the one who said, "an army marches on its stomach".
The Russian winter was pretty mild that year, BTW. I'm not sure where it got started that that's what hurt him the most, but I suspect it may have been someone sympathetic to Napoleon, as it somewhat takes away from the fact that he just got impatient and let his strategy go to the dogs if it can just be blamed on shitty weather.
Has Napoleon been mentioned? I'm sure he has. Still, Napoleon. He was not only a military genius, not only a political genius, but he was enough of a genius to use both of those talents in harmony. Motherfucker was a master of organization and administration.
Actually, in a similar vein, I'll nominate Genghis Khan as well.
I would agree that Napoleon was a organizational, administrative, and political genius, but I don't think he was a great tactician. All he did was use his superior numbers and charge the shit out of the enemy line at hardpoints.
You are wrong.
Although: "lets invade Russia" was a bad move tactically. I don't see why Hitler thought it would be a good move either, I mean; for crying out loud, Napoleon tried it and failed, don't you learn from the past mistakes of others? It would seem not.
It wasn't a bad move, he just did it badly. He should have stayed in Moscow. There was no good reason to leave, he was just impatient.
hitler also fucked up by dicking around in southeast europe beforehand, thereby delaying the attack. had he been afforded the extra few months of relatively good weather, that would've made a big difference. i don't know that it would've meant that hitler would've been successful, but he woulda had a better shot.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
I'm going to go with Newton. Not just for Calculus, although that was cool. Not just for Gravity, although that was okay too. Not just for his work in optics or for hanging out in bars hunting counterfeiters. Not just for being a brilliant innovator and also able to reconcile his work with a belief in the literal truth of the bible (talk about holding simultaneous contradictory ideas in one's head).
But for being able to do all of this in a time which was actively and systemically hostile to the theories he came up with. And for being good enough at it all to the point that by the end of his life the times had actually changed because of him.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but Newton didn't really have to fight that hard to promote his theories. The publication of his Principia made him widely popular and was accepted very quickly. He was knighted by England, and the Church actually used his ideas to reinforce Christianity, rather than attack his ideas. Hell, apart from Liebniz, I can't think of anyone who was all that angry at Newton.
Just saying, he was a genius, but maverick might be an unfair characterization.
He had a reputation for being an insufferable ass to people. He didn't really fight to promote his scientific ideas ideas becasue eh didn't think they were all that important. He wanted to use them as a tool to prove his religious and alchemy research which he thought were much more important. Hell Newton wrote like twice as much on Religion as he did on science and most of his science work was early in his life. Also he was knighted for his work as master of the mint not his scientific accomplishment.
I'm going to go with Newton. Not just for Calculus, although that was cool. Not just for Gravity, although that was okay too. Not just for his work in optics or for hanging out in bars hunting counterfeiters. Not just for being a brilliant innovator and also able to reconcile his work with a belief in the literal truth of the bible (talk about holding simultaneous contradictory ideas in one's head).
But for being able to do all of this in a time which was actively and systemically hostile to the theories he came up with. And for being good enough at it all to the point that by the end of his life the times had actually changed because of him.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but Newton didn't really have to fight that hard to promote his theories. The publication of his Principia made him widely popular and was accepted very quickly. He was knighted by England, and the Church actually used his ideas to reinforce Christianity, rather than attack his ideas. Hell, apart from Liebniz, I can't think of anyone who was all that angry at Newton.
Just saying, he was a genius, but maverick might be an unfair characterization.
He had a reputation for being an insufferable ass to people. He didn't really fight to promote his scientific ideas ideas becasue eh didn't think they were all that important. He wanted to use them as a tool to prove his religious and alchemy research which he thought were much more important. Hell Newton wrote like twice as much on Religion as he did on science and most of his science work was early in his life. Also he was knighted for his work as master of the mint not his scientific accomplishment.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not, but I'm just pointing out that the only people Newton had to fight with were due to his own arrogance, not for his scientific principles. If you want someone who did that, look at Galileo, the guy had to spend his later life in house arrest for not accepting a flat earth.
He's way too overrated, and he's definitely not a genius.
Yeah, I mean he has had a great impact on the world, but he just combined his great skills at etymology with decent skills at poetry and philosophy. Definitely not a uppercase "G" Genius.
So how many works of genius does a person have to perform before they can be called a Genius?
Is it enough to do one or two super smart things and then burn out, or do we require that the person produce a certain quality all throughout their life? Or is it an intangible trait? I think several of the people mentioned here just ended up with a lot of recognition and probably didn't really deserve the title.
Veegeezee on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
It depends. Few works of Shakespeare show how great of a genius he was (the big tragedies, AMND, The Tempest) however, the sheer number of amazing works shows how much he understand human nature. Even his lesser or stranger works (Timon of Athens comes to mind) are extremely probing works of art. Mozart is another example of this type of genius.
Now look at, say, David Lynch. I think he is totally overrated, but Eraserhead recieved every ounce of energy he had, and turned out to be amazing.
Posts
Yes, it's ironic, most of his army starved and succumbed to disease, and I think he's the one who said, "an army marches on its stomach".
The Russian winter was pretty mild that year, BTW. I'm not sure where it got started that that's what hurt him the most, but I suspect it may have been someone sympathetic to Napoleon, as it somewhat takes away from the fact that he just got impatient and let his strategy go to the dogs if it can just be blamed on shitty weather.
hitler also fucked up by dicking around in southeast europe beforehand, thereby delaying the attack. had he been afforded the extra few months of relatively good weather, that would've made a big difference. i don't know that it would've meant that hitler would've been successful, but he woulda had a better shot.
He had a reputation for being an insufferable ass to people. He didn't really fight to promote his scientific ideas ideas becasue eh didn't think they were all that important. He wanted to use them as a tool to prove his religious and alchemy research which he thought were much more important. Hell Newton wrote like twice as much on Religion as he did on science and most of his science work was early in his life. Also he was knighted for his work as master of the mint not his scientific accomplishment.
He's way too overrated, and he's definitely not a genius.
Yeah, I mean he has had a great impact on the world, but he just combined his great skills at etymology with decent skills at poetry and philosophy. Definitely not a uppercase "G" Genius.
Is it enough to do one or two super smart things and then burn out, or do we require that the person produce a certain quality all throughout their life? Or is it an intangible trait? I think several of the people mentioned here just ended up with a lot of recognition and probably didn't really deserve the title.
Now look at, say, David Lynch. I think he is totally overrated, but Eraserhead recieved every ounce of energy he had, and turned out to be amazing.