Cybach
26-01-2007, 14:11
If you had a modern nation and could choose any historical figures to
lead various offices who would you choose?
Government:
President- Frederick the II of Prussia. He was enlightenend in philosophy, arts and music, he was also overly tolerant and social orientated to the welfare of the common people. And yet his military prowess and success militarily would have made his father the "soldier king" proud. Also he often solved battles just through his reputation and psychology. I feel he is the perfect mix of all features needed in a President of a nation which has a strong military but yet also has people with many desires.
Vice President - Quintus Sertorious. Also a much learned man, who during Rome's first true dictator (Sulla) took a whole region Hispania and set up a whole new soceity and republic there. A prosperous republic, but much more lenient to the commoners and less Patrician then Rome. Also he was an extraordinary general, some people gave him the name "the new Hannibal." He rebuffed every Roman army that was sent to reclaim the territory, even though badly outnumberred and having less disciplined troops. However this was more because of his diplomatic and oratory skills for which he was famous. He could convince rival barbarian clans to fight for him and command their armies until the Roman army was forced into retreat. He never lost a single battle (even against the most powerfull military nation at the time), a feat very few can claim. He only died after being betrayed by some Hispanian nobles who disliked how much the common people worshipped him. With his death the Republic of Hispania collapsed and became Roman again.
Diplomat - Otto von Bismarck. The iron diplomat. He knew when to start a war and when to end a war. He was one of the few people in history who learned the ability to use warfare to their favor and never destroy or burn more bridges then needed to achieve one's goal.
Economy - Adam Smith. The founder of modern economic structures.
Military:
General of the army - Hannibal. He is simply one of the finest generals in history and was able to forsee the outcomes of battles before they happened and plan accordingly. He was only defeated because of treachery that was unforseeable. No one could defeat him in a pitched battle. Also he became an inspiration for every general after him to this day.
Subordinate - Napoleon Bonaparte. That short Corsican, also had a profound ability to win pitched battles and conquer. However he should not be in complete command since he had the tendency to overreach his goals and lose it all.
Subordinate - Erwin Rommel, the desert fox. Because of his mobility, ability and amazing speed. Even the German high command lost track of where he was at times. His army at El Alamein was defeated while he was ill and in another country. Also he was the only axis officer to inflict a lost battle onto US forces (the battle of Kasserine pass), who were forced into confused retreat. If allowed his way he could have repulsed the Normandy landing, which through Hitler's unwillingness to hand over the Panzer korps we will never know if it would have been possible. Rommels plan was to send the panzers in small groups close to the beaches. Whenever Allied forces made it en masse over some of the cliffs (which he was the one who ordered them to be as heavily defended as they were; hence inflicting such heavy casualties on Allied forces), he planned on drving a tank division directly into the newly set up camp to drive them right back down the cliffs before they could really set up. However he may well have lost half the panzer's through the Allied Royal Navy and Air force, however it could have well caused the Normandy landing to be failure, being under heavy fire the whole time and not being able to secure a beachhead, without Panzer divisions immediatly storming it. All in all also a very good officer.
Feel free to add more positions, that I overlooked. Would like to see if given the choice who others would choose and why :)
lead various offices who would you choose?
Government:
President- Frederick the II of Prussia. He was enlightenend in philosophy, arts and music, he was also overly tolerant and social orientated to the welfare of the common people. And yet his military prowess and success militarily would have made his father the "soldier king" proud. Also he often solved battles just through his reputation and psychology. I feel he is the perfect mix of all features needed in a President of a nation which has a strong military but yet also has people with many desires.
Vice President - Quintus Sertorious. Also a much learned man, who during Rome's first true dictator (Sulla) took a whole region Hispania and set up a whole new soceity and republic there. A prosperous republic, but much more lenient to the commoners and less Patrician then Rome. Also he was an extraordinary general, some people gave him the name "the new Hannibal." He rebuffed every Roman army that was sent to reclaim the territory, even though badly outnumberred and having less disciplined troops. However this was more because of his diplomatic and oratory skills for which he was famous. He could convince rival barbarian clans to fight for him and command their armies until the Roman army was forced into retreat. He never lost a single battle (even against the most powerfull military nation at the time), a feat very few can claim. He only died after being betrayed by some Hispanian nobles who disliked how much the common people worshipped him. With his death the Republic of Hispania collapsed and became Roman again.
Diplomat - Otto von Bismarck. The iron diplomat. He knew when to start a war and when to end a war. He was one of the few people in history who learned the ability to use warfare to their favor and never destroy or burn more bridges then needed to achieve one's goal.
Economy - Adam Smith. The founder of modern economic structures.
Military:
General of the army - Hannibal. He is simply one of the finest generals in history and was able to forsee the outcomes of battles before they happened and plan accordingly. He was only defeated because of treachery that was unforseeable. No one could defeat him in a pitched battle. Also he became an inspiration for every general after him to this day.
Subordinate - Napoleon Bonaparte. That short Corsican, also had a profound ability to win pitched battles and conquer. However he should not be in complete command since he had the tendency to overreach his goals and lose it all.
Subordinate - Erwin Rommel, the desert fox. Because of his mobility, ability and amazing speed. Even the German high command lost track of where he was at times. His army at El Alamein was defeated while he was ill and in another country. Also he was the only axis officer to inflict a lost battle onto US forces (the battle of Kasserine pass), who were forced into confused retreat. If allowed his way he could have repulsed the Normandy landing, which through Hitler's unwillingness to hand over the Panzer korps we will never know if it would have been possible. Rommels plan was to send the panzers in small groups close to the beaches. Whenever Allied forces made it en masse over some of the cliffs (which he was the one who ordered them to be as heavily defended as they were; hence inflicting such heavy casualties on Allied forces), he planned on drving a tank division directly into the newly set up camp to drive them right back down the cliffs before they could really set up. However he may well have lost half the panzer's through the Allied Royal Navy and Air force, however it could have well caused the Normandy landing to be failure, being under heavy fire the whole time and not being able to secure a beachhead, without Panzer divisions immediatly storming it. All in all also a very good officer.
Feel free to add more positions, that I overlooked. Would like to see if given the choice who others would choose and why :)