|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Jun 27, 2023 19:39:25 GMT
Kutuzov comes to mind for bad tactician but good strategist. Whilst he didn't won any major battle against Napoleon, he did drive the large French army out of Russia and persisted on avoiding the French even after they took Moscow. I also thought of Kutuzov, but that's based on a very small slice of his career. He had 50 years of experience before Napoleon's invasion of Russia, and was in fact fairly highly regarded as a tactician at the time. I do agree with Comrade Voroshilov's reasoning that this question is more difficult. Additionally, in a modern professional army, if you're tactically incompetent, you might be a strategic genius but never rise through the ranks enough to show it. For that reason it might be easier to look at older history, when military command was more often tied to birth. Just going to throw out Philip VI of France as an option. I've also heard it argued that George Washington was a better strategist than tactician. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jun 30, 2023 22:20:31 GMT
Kutuzov comes to mind for bad tactician but good strategist. Whilst he didn't won any major battle against Napoleon, he did drive the large French army out of Russia and persisted on avoiding the French even after they took Moscow. I also thought of Kutuzov, but that's based on a very small slice of his career. He had 50 years of experience before Napoleon's invasion of Russia, and was in fact fairly highly regarded as a tactician at the time. I do agree with Comrade Voroshilov's reasoning that this question is more difficult. Additionally, in a modern professional army, if you're tactically incompetent, you might be a strategic genius but never rise through the ranks enough to show it. For that reason it might be easier to look at older history, when military command was more often tied to birth. Just going to throw out Philip VI of France as an option. I've also heard it argued that George Washington was a better strategist than tactician. Washington was a decent strategist and tactician but bad logistically. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jul 15, 2023 22:55:10 GMT
Hey, Ludwig von Mises , I'd like to suggest something for the test process if that's okay. While naturally it's also important to have general knowledge, most people prefer to specialize in some specific eras and fields after all, so, what about changing some questions based on those fields (like Ancient/Medieval/Roman/Modern tactics) which the applicants would state beforehand, like in the Historical Society group? Of course, it's your call, just wanted to share the idea  In any case, I'd like to take the test again if possible. Like the others who've been a member since the foundation I wasn't required to take the test, but if it's possible I'd like to take it now, both to make it fair for the new members and as a challange. Hope I won't regret this  I apologize, I kind of forgot about this again I'll accept your idea for the different categories, I will make an official tacticians thread and give you your quiz there |
|
|
|
Post by yesildal on Jul 16, 2023 5:23:37 GMT
Hello everyone, a while ago I created a group called Tacticians, which basically involved having knowledge of military tactics and strategy. I went inactive for a while and the group faded away. Now that I have returned, I am reopening the group to applications! To get in, you must pass a short quiz. Anyone is free to apply! Can I join, too |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Jul 16, 2023 14:46:33 GMT
Hello everyone, a while ago I created a group called Tacticians, which basically involved having knowledge of military tactics and strategy. I went inactive for a while and the group faded away. Now that I have returned, I am reopening the group to applications! To get in, you must pass a short quiz. Anyone is free to apply! Can I join, too Yes, go to the main tacticians thread, and apply for a quiz, directions are posted there. european-war-4.boards.net/thread/18886/official-tactician-thread |
|
