Who Do You Think Is the Greatest Military Mind of All Time?

[New Sangheilios]

Either Field Marshal Zhukov, Field Marshal Rommel or Napoleon. Probably Rommel.

[Caninope]

In Athens, any free male could vote, not just those with land, IIRC.

Depends on the time period. Solon loosened restrictions on voting, but even then it was "free men", which is still a rather exclusionary divide.

Not as much as one would think. Athens had far fewer slaves than say, Sparta, or Rome.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Either Field Marshal Zhukov, Field Marshal Rommel or Napoleon. Probably Rommel.

Rommel was kind of an idiot, tbh. He fucked up his supply lines, overextended himself regularly, and blamed his subordinates every single time anything went wrong. Most overrated in the war, by faaaaaaaaaaar. Best German commander would be either Kesselring(damn he was brilliant in Italy,) or Rundstedt.

[Turanic Lands]

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.He kicked all imperialist powers from Turkey.And he did it with a hopeless,poor people who lost most of it's man power in previous wars.Also Atatürk changed destiny of Gallipoli with his brave tactics which he did without listening his senior "pasha"s.
As other ones,Attila(scourge of God),Saladin,Baybars,Simon Bolivar and Alp Arslan.

[Farnhamia]

Depends on the time period. Solon loosened restrictions on voting, but even then it was "free men", which is still a rather exclusionary divide.

Not as much as one would think. Athens had far fewer slaves than say, Sparta, or Rome.

Sorry, no, Cani. WIki sayeth (the article on slavery) that Athens had the largest number of slaves, at least in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. As many as three or four per citizen household.

[Caninope]

Not as much as one would think. Athens had far fewer slaves than say, Sparta, or Rome.

Sorry, no, Cani. WIki sayeth (the article on slavery) that Athens had the largest number of slaves, at least in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. As many as three or four per citizen household.

Not as a percentage. Athens was the largest city in Ancient Greece. See here.

[New Sangheilios]

Either Field Marshal Zhukov, Field Marshal Rommel or Napoleon. Probably Rommel.

Rommel was kind of an idiot, tbh. He fucked up his supply lines, overextended himself regularly, and blamed his subordinates every single time anything went wrong. Most overrated in the war, by faaaaaaaaaaar. Best German commander would be either Kesselring(damn he was brilliant in Italy,) or Rundstedt.

Or Manstein. I forgot to mention Manstein. The guy could (and did) rival Zhukov, so he should be up there. In fact, if they had equal troops, tanks and aircraft, Manstein would probably have beaten Zhukov.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Sorry, no, Cani. WIki sayeth (the article on slavery) that Athens had the largest number of slaves, at least in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. As many as three or four per citizen household.

Not as a percentage. Athens was the largest city in Ancient Greece. See here.

That's Helots. Helots arguably occupied a social caste between free men and slaves in Greek society.

[New Sangheilios]

Either Field Marshal Zhukov, Field Marshal Rommel or Napoleon. Probably Rommel.

Rommel was kind of an idiot, tbh. He fucked up his supply lines, overextended himself regularly, and blamed his subordinates every single time anything went wrong. Most overrated in the war, by faaaaaaaaaaar. Best German commander would be either Kesselring(damn he was brilliant in Italy,) or Rundstedt.

Or Manstein. I forgot to mention Manstein. The guy could (and did) rival Zhukov, so he should be up there. In fact, if they had equal troops, tanks and aircraft, Manstein would probably have beaten Zhukov.

[Caninope]

Not as a percentage. Athens was the largest city in Ancient Greece. See here.

That's Helots. Helots arguably occupied a social caste between free men and slaves in Greek society.

Arguably, they didn't, according to Critias.

[New England and The Maritimes]

That's Helots. Helots arguably occupied a social caste between free men and slaves in Greek society.

Arguably, they didn't, according to Critias.

Yes, and what this argument means is that slaves are considered to be a thing, and Helots are also considered to be a thing, rather than a synonym. Meaning there are slaves aside from Helots.

[Caninope]

Arguably, they didn't, according to Critias.

Yes, and what this argument means is that slaves are considered to be a thing, and Helots are also considered to be a thing, rather than a synonym. Meaning there are slaves aside from Helots.

Slaves aren't, by definition, "a thing"- they are, by definition, involuntary servants.

[Conserative Morality]

I'd say Rome started off less of an oligarchy and more of a proto-feudalist state. The haves had a sort of representative government that only represented them, and everyone else was fucked. I think Oligarchy is a bit of a misnomer when applied to these sorts of unrepresentational republics. Sparta was an Oligarchy, while early Athens was an aristocracratic "democracy" in which "Citizens" could vote, but "Citizens" were made up of(male, obviously,) landed elite whose fathers and grandfathers had also been citizens.

That's not what feudalism is. The Roman Kingdom was basically a constitutional monarchy, but without the tenants of universal democracy that we're used to. Early Athens wasn't all that democratic. It was about as democratic as the earliest incarnations of the Roman Republic, probably a bit less so, truth be told.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Yes, and what this argument means is that slaves are considered to be a thing, and Helots are also considered to be a thing, rather than a synonym. Meaning there are slaves aside from Helots.

Slaves aren't, by definition, "a thing"- they are, by definition, involuntary servants.

If you have a separate word for Helot and Slave, this means Slavery exists independently of Helots. This is a True Fact. See: Penestae.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I'd say Rome started off less of an oligarchy and more of a proto-feudalist state. The haves had a sort of representative government that only represented them, and everyone else was fucked. I think Oligarchy is a bit of a misnomer when applied to these sorts of unrepresentational republics. Sparta was an Oligarchy, while early Athens was an aristocracratic "democracy" in which "Citizens" could vote, but "Citizens" were made up of(male, obviously,) landed elite whose fathers and grandfathers had also been citizens.

That's not what feudalism is. The Roman Kingdom was basically a constitutional monarchy, but without the tenants of universal democracy that we're used to. Early Athens wasn't all that democratic. It was about as democratic as the earliest incarnations of the Roman Republic, probably a bit less so, truth be told.

They weren't democratic at all. They were Plutocracies functioning on different mechanisms.

[Kemaliste]

Great Supreme Commander Ataturk.

[Conserative Morality]

They weren't democratic at all. They were Plutocracies functioning on different mechanisms.

Except neither Athens nor Rome were plutocracies. Roman representation was more aristocratic in nature, with limited power given to plebeians, Athenian democracy was basically purely aristocratic, with both forms basically disregarding material wealth in the legal system (Exception given to the comitia centuriata)

[New England and The Maritimes]

They weren't democratic at all. They were Plutocracies functioning on different mechanisms.

Except neither Athens nor Rome were plutocracies. Roman representation was more aristocratic in nature, with limited power given to plebeians, Athenian democracy was basically purely aristocratic, with both forms basically disregarding material wealth in the legal system (Exception given to the comitia centuriata)

I wouldn't say that. Financial status of a family is what determined their original status. Whether or not they kept the same level of wealth individually isn't really important. Aristocracy is about descent from the wealthy at its core.

[Caninope]

Slaves aren't, by definition, "a thing"- they are, by definition, involuntary servants.

If you have a separate word for Helot and Slave, this means Slavery exists independently of Helots. This is a True Fact. See: Penestae.

Not quite. I have both a separate word for the color red and the word color. That doesn't mean red isn't a color. Helots were a class of slaves.

[Caninope]

Except neither Athens nor Rome were plutocracies. Roman representation was more aristocratic in nature, with limited power given to plebeians, Athenian democracy was basically purely aristocratic, with both forms basically disregarding material wealth in the legal system (Exception given to the comitia centuriata)

I wouldn't say that. Financial status of a family is what determined their original status. Whether or not they kept the same level of wealth individually isn't really important. Aristocracy is about descent from the wealthy at its core.

And many patrician families became poor.

[New England and The Maritimes]

If you have a separate word for Helot and Slave, this means Slavery exists independently of Helots. This is a True Fact. See: Penestae.

Not quite. I have both a separate word for the color red and the word color. That doesn't mean red isn't a color. Helots were a class of slaves.

Exactly. This means, since Red isn't your word for Color, that there are colors aside from Red. Which is what I'm saying. Using Helot populations as the total amount of slaves is like saying the amount of red pixels is the amount of pixels.

[Conserative Morality]

I wouldn't say that. Financial status of a family is what determined their original status. Whether or not they kept the same level of wealth individually isn't really important. Aristocracy is about descent from the wealthy at its core.

Not really. Supposedly, the first patricians were a group of a hundred hand-picked by Romulus while Rome was still a city of thieves and beggars and stealing women from their neighbors. In Athens it was all about being free, which amounted to birth regardless of wealth. That has more in common with luck in warfare and choice of residence than wealth.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I wouldn't say that. Financial status of a family is what determined their original status. Whether or not they kept the same level of wealth individually isn't really important. Aristocracy is about descent from the wealthy at its core.

And many patrician families became poor.

They maintained their status as Patricians because their family, through the course of history, had been wealthy. That's the distinction.

[Conserative Morality]

If you have a separate word for Helot and Slave, this means Slavery exists independently of Helots. This is a True Fact. See: Penestae.

If I have a separate word for Milite and Soldier, they are different. This is a fact.

Oh wait, no it's not.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I wouldn't say that. Financial status of a family is what determined their original status. Whether or not they kept the same level of wealth individually isn't really important. Aristocracy is about descent from the wealthy at its core.

Not really. Supposedly, the first patricians were a group of a hundred hand-picked by Romulus while Rome was still a city of thieves and beggars and stealing women from their neighbors. In Athens it was all about being free, which amounted to birth regardless of wealth. That has more in common with luck in warfare and choice of residence than wealth.

Eh, the European Aristocracy claimed they were hand picked by God to lead the rest. Romulus & Remus have nothing but mythical accounts to go by, the same as Yahweh, so it's not much of a source.

In Greece the elite wanted freedom, but didn't want to have to answer to "lesser" people, so they decided to exclude them from the process until the 6th century BC.