who has won every war since the dawn of humanity?

[Shai Gar]

a quick philosophical question for you.

i shall give the answer when i get home tommorow

[Claverhouse]

Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ApeTheDog]

Well whoever survived them, I'd say. But yeah, the answer is probably 'death' or 'violence' or 'war itself' or 'God' or 'ZUUUL'.

[Geoff]

The vultures and maggots.

[Division56]

ShaiGar and his warrior princess Jenna.

[MacGuffin]

ShaiGar and his warrior princess Jenna.
[snickers]

[jimkopelli]

Anyone who was selling the arms but not fighting.

[J.L. des Alpins]

Humanity itself.

No matter the countless battles humankind has already lost, it has yet to lose the war.

J.L.

[Shai Gar]

Oh gods Div, the name is Jemma, and she is not my "princess". she is a girl i like that is it.

and the answer is the ravens, but geoff was closest

[Geoff]

[snickers]

A chocolate bar won every war in history? No wonder chocolate is successful.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

a quick philosophical question for you.

i shall give the answer when i get home tommorow

Might.

[J.L. des Alpins]

Might.This answer is incorrect if you define might as "the power, energy, or intensity of purpose, feeling, or action of which one is capable" (Merriam-Webster).

A case in point: Bonaparte at Waterloo.

Virtually all serious analyses of this period of the Napoleonic Wars conclude that the Frenchs had superior power, energy, and intensity of action than the Englishs and Prussians combined. Yet, all this might has only served at adding a new expression in the English (and French) vocabulary.

How can superior might fail? Well, in the case of Waterloo, Victor Hugo presented what probably is the most dramatic of all explainations, in his book, Les Misérables: The balance of forces of the Universe could not tolerate that so much might be concentrated in only one place...in the person of Napoleon Bonaparte. Thus, for the good of all things that exist, the Universe intervened by making the French lose.

Maybe only the Universe can ultimately win them all...

J.L.

[Lee]

The living.

[booyalab]

a quick philosophical question for you.

i shall give the answer when i get home tommorow
big business!!!!!!!!!!

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Burt Reynolds

[Dman]

who has won every war since the dawn of humanity?


the winners

[Claverhouse]

I understand that songbird was correcting Shai's confidence that he would return. In the eventuality, he did --- probably, if you are catholic, due to all the prayers and good wishes of the faithful in the forum. Yet it was as well that sb34 did remind him of the mutibility of events: Man proposes, God Disposes. To prevent hubris, it is a necessity for Shai's chariot to bear another, warning 'Remember, you too are human'*. Gaius Julius Caesar fully expected to return from the Forum that day.


This answer is incorrect if you define might as "the power, energy, or intensity of purpose, feeling, or action of which one is capable" (Merriam-Webster).

A case in point: Bonaparte at Waterloo.

Virtually all serious analyses of this period of the Napoleonic Wars conclude that the Frenchs had superior power, energy, and intensity of action than the Englishs and Prussians combined. Yet, all this might has only served at adding a new expression in the English (and French) vocabulary. The French, having lost the superiority gained by the impetus of the revolution allied to the excellent tactical developments of the Royal Army plus Bonaparte's peerless strengths ( not that he was unique, merely unique at that era ) were no longer the men they were --- a long period of war debilitates any nation. Further the people they fought now had equal abilities. Bonaparte was never greater than in the final series of battles, yet even he --- not to mention his generals --- could be beaten by v. Blucher. The final test was in the psychological make-up of both the generals and the nations they represented: Blucher would never ever let up, like certain dogs he would carry on to death, even if defeated again and again; but the French can never take defeat well. 'Nous somme trahis !' ( This is not a criticism: nations have different strengths and weaknesses and the furor francais was always impressive ]
Anyway the Austrians were about and they would have kept getting up and returning forever. Not to mention the Russians.

At the most the best peace France could have got even had she won Waterloo would have been a return to the 1792 borders, and that alone would have spelt the end for the Bonaparte clan. As he pointed out, his continuation demanded endless expansion. The defeat certainly suited France best, giving her time to recover, and to maintain Paris as the mainspring of civilised life.


How can superior might fail? Well, in the case of Waterloo, Victor Hugo presented what probably is the most dramatic of all explainations, in his book, Les Misérables: The balance of forces of the Universe could not tolerate that so much might be concentrated in only one place...in the person of Napoleon Bonaparte. Thus, for the good of all things that exist, the Universe intervened by making the French lose.

Maybe only the Universe can ultimately win them all...

J.L. Rather like Hardy's The Dynasts ? --- which I haven't read, not caring for verse-dramas ( except Wagner ) Considering what sort of person Hugo was, it is pleasant that his greatest work should be best known as a not especially good musical. Not that any musical is good.


Claverhouse :ph34r:



* If he is, and not a messenger from beyond the stars.

[Serotonin]

A chocolate bar won every war in history? No wonder chocolate is successful.

-Geoff

:rofl:

That brightened my day.

[Star Cannon]

An excellent question. Can you enlighten us to the answer?

[Vagabond]

and the answer is the ravens, but geoff was closest He did... lol

[J.L. des Alpins]

…Bonaparte's peerless strengths (not that he was unique, merely unique at that era)…Many reputable military historians irrevocably agree that the greatest strategic AND tactical mind of humankind is the imperialist French, Bonaparte. If you define ‘at that era’ as in the past million years, then I would agree with your assessment that The Emperor was unique in his Greatness. Otherwise, I would encourage you to go back to your history books, though, I would advise you to keep away from the too-numerous English-biased, king’s men feel-good-propaganda war chronicles, that, it is being said, one sees at every corner-store librarians of common repute in your island-bound principality.

As for the rest of your number 17 post, any respectable gentleman in my position would withhold further comments and grant you a reprieve to allow you to set afresh what you really mean to share with your INTP peers.

…a long period of war debilitates any nation…This is a questionable notion, though, yet to be proven wrong, I must admit: Indeed, the war-waging American people are yet to be debilitated after three centuries of almost continuous armed conflicts.

J.L.

[ohnoaninfp]

me

[MacGuffin]

This is a questionable notion, though, yet to be proven wrong, I must admit: Indeed, the war-waging American people are yet to be debilitated after three centuries of almost continuous armed conflicts.
Damn straight. You want some?

[Shai Gar]

i certainly wouldnt mind some, the private citzens of the world verses the United States... i shall work with usama on that one

[misutii]

The living.

the dead

[Lee]

the dead
?

[Shai Gar]

the carrion eaters

[misutii]

?

meant to be interpreted in an existentially dark comedic manner

[Lee]

meant to be interpreted in an existentially dark comedic manner
It was, but I did not know for certain that was how it was meant.

[misutii]

It was, but I did not know for certain that was how it was meant.

i told my psychiatrist i was misunderstood and he misunderstood me -_-

[ApeTheDog]

Ants wage lots of wars as well, and the ravens don't win squat in them. Nyah.

[Dunearhp]

the dead

They're just biding their time. Just you wait... one day...

Braaaains. :thelook:

[YardGnome]

The Cockroaches!

[booyalab]

FLESH EATING BACTERIA

[ApeTheDog]

The jewish conspiracy.

Oh yes 'they' will tell you there is no such thing but that just proves they're in on it as well.

[booyalab]

pat hippie response: "no one" *murmurs of approval from fellow hemp smokers*

[Sir Isaac Lime]

pat hippie response: "no one" *murmurs of approval from fellow hemp smokers*

*puts out joint and tries to stand up straight*

[Claverhouse]

Many reputable military historians irrevocably agree that the greatest strategic AND tactical mind of humankind is the imperialist French, Bonaparte. French ones, I assume. Not that he was French himself: had Corsica been acquired by another power rather than France, say Austria or Britain, he may have exercised his virtu as a general on their behalf...


If you define ‘at that era’ as in the past million years, then I would agree with your assessment that The Emperor was unique in his Greatness. Why ? Apart from the fact that effectually we can only go back 10,000 years, even he acknowledged many other Great Captains, and in some cases felt they went further than he could ( Frederick the Great especially ), Alexander, Caesar, Karl the Great, Gustav Adolf, Turenne, Conde, Marlborough, Frederick... Not to mention that each commander faces different challenges and must work with material and events to hand. And after him there was Moltke the Elder and rather a number of other generals, mainly German: 'Smiling Albert' Kesselring is particularly underrated.


Otherwise, I would encourage you to go back to your history books, though, I would advise you to keep away from the too-numerous English-biased, king’s men feel-good-propaganda war chronicles, that, it is being said, one sees at every corner-store librarians of common repute in your island-bound principality. I don't read 'em. As a jacobite I am scarcely willing to acknowledge, let alone celebrate the collection of traitors that have fought for the imitation British monarchy since 1689. Not to mention that I prefer Germanic traditions and being kaisertreue: by which same token I reject the pseudomonarchic essential republicanism of the Little Cult himself. Fuller's pretty good though. And Christopher Duffy ( whom I've met several times ).


As for the rest of your number 17 post, any respectable gentleman in my position would withhold further comments and grant you a reprieve to allow you to set afresh what you really mean to share with your INTP peers. I refuse to make allowances here or anywhere. If people can't understand something, that is nothing to be ashamed of, but they shouldn't complain.


This is a questionable notion, though, yet to be proven wrong, I must admit: Indeed, the war-waging American people are yet to be debilitated after three centuries of almost continuous armed conflicts.

J.L.
The Americans, who are in any case by circumstance inferior as fighting people to the French, English, Germans or Russians --- since they have never been tempered by the same fires --- have always fought expeditionary wars, [ excepting the fascinating, but ludicrous War Between the States --- Four bloody years it took, four bloody years: even the Crimea was done in less than three, and Moltke was in Paris in under a year, against a far tougher foe ]. The homeland was never in danger, and ordinary Americans were barely affected by even WWI or WWII.

At Stalingrad the stakes for the individual Russian were amazingly personal; and at Berlin a few years later the tides of both western and eastern barbarism were overwhelming civilisation much as it earlier died at Constantinople when Constantine died by the wall. In America they just had to worry about gas rationing.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Jacque]

pat hippie response: "no one" *murmurs of approval from fellow hemp smokers*

Peace...or truce ;).

[booyalab]

Peace...or truce ;).

*hippie personality emerges again*

"nobody wins in war because both sides resorted to violence instead of talking about their feelings over organic soy lattes served in recyclable cups at a fair trade coffee shop!"

[j4ck]

Answer:

The immortal Scourge of God, Ghengis Khan and the Golden Horde!!! YAAARRRGGHHH!

http://www.blackgate.net/images/portfolio/golden_horde_lg.png

[jimkopelli]

I don't think old Ghengis has won anything too... recent, shall we say, on excuse of being dead, and probably has been barred from winning any wars fought before his birth... so that kinda eliminates him from the running, eh?

I would want him on my side if the situation came to that, though.

[j4ck]

I don't think old Ghengis has won anything too... recent, shall we say, on excuse of being dead, and probably has been barred from winning any wars fought before his birth... so that kinda eliminates him from the running, eh?

I would want him on my side if the situation came to that, though.

Very clever, sonny. But my post very clearly states that the Scourge of God (as well as his hoary Horde of nomadic mongoloid-demons) is immortal.

[jimkopelli]

How can one be immortal if they are dead? Immortal as a concept doesn't allow you to win wars in person.

I don't think it's legal to refer to anyone as "sonny" on this forum, junior.

Especially if they have a few thousand more posts than you.

[j4ck]

Sorry. I was just trying to make a creative joke that some folks of a like mind might find amusing.

[J.L. des Alpins]

Hey j4cko! In case you haven't noticed: jim has two orders of magnetude as many posts as you do (as I do too, for all practical purposes). It may be a good idea for all of us juniors to learn the ropes of this forum and its etiquette before we get to...casual.

JL

(On the other hand, it would most probably be a fun--but short lived--contest for both of you to be crossing swords.)