От Чингизид
К Чингизид
Дата 13.11.2000 17:33:22
Рубрики Древняя история; 11-19 век; WWI; WWII; Современность; ...

Re: 100 великих полководцев: ranking of the military leaders of all time

Hi all!

Да, предваряя возможные табуретки в адрес "нехороших" или "слишком хороших" американцев :)
кладу сразу высказывание одного из них с Амазона об этой книге:

Disappointing, February 27, 2000
Reviewer: Jon Eckel from Los Angeles, CA

I bought this book not so much for the ranking of top military personalities as I did for the brief biographies of them contained within. I was greatly disappointed on both counts.

The ranking system used is bizarre and incomprehensible. The author places Washington at the top of his list because he was the founding father of the United States, which is undisputed as the dominant power in the world today. This makes the very dubious assumption that America would have remained a British colony if not for him. Furthermore, the United States did not become a major world power until 100 years after Washington's death. By contrast, Mao Zedong waged a successful struggle against the Japanese, crushed his opponents in the Chinese Civil War, and founded the People's Republic of China, which upon his death in 1976 was second only to the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. as a world power. In spite of these and other achievements, he is ranked 48th.

Rounding out the top five are more inspired choices: Napoleon at #2, Alexander the Great at #3, Genghis Khan at # 4, and Julius Caesar at #5. Still, if _lasting_ influence is the main criteria, then the author has made more bad choices. Napoleon's empire lasted only 10 years, while Alexander's collapsed immediately after his death. Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire, however, dominated both Russia and China for centuries, and Caesar's conquests in France and elsewhere remained Roman territory for half a millenium.

Things only get worse from then on. Hitler is ranked 14th while Stalin, who ultimately prevailed against him, does not appear at all. General Eisenhower is ranked 18th, while Marshal Zhukov is placed at 70th (there are only 2 Soviet WWII commanders listed in all, compared with 7 for America). Saddam Hussein, at 81st, is only two slots lower than Erwin Rommel! Napoleon's Marshal Ney made the list (albeit ranked at #96) but Marshal Davout, who was much better, did not.

I might have still given this book two stars, or even three, if the biographies of the commanders were of any value. However, many contain factual errors as well as strange comments such as one passage which equates Robert E. Lee's generalship with that of Zulu chieftain Shaka. The bio of Attila the Hun, in particular, was a complete joke. I soon found myself unable to trust anything that the author wrote.

There are other books available on the same theme that are probably much better than this one. For certain, they cannot be any worse.
От Ildy
К Чингизид (13.11.2000 17:33:22)
Дата 13.11.2000 21:03:40

Re: Полностью согласен (-)
От Владимир Несамарский
К Чингизид (13.11.2000 17:33:22)
Дата 13.11.2000 18:30:17

Лучше не скажешь! Только стоило ли вообще рецензировать эту убогость? (-)

Приветствую
>Hi all!

>Да, предваряя возможные табуретки в адрес "нехороших" или "слишком хороших" американцев :)
>кладу сразу высказывание одного из них с Амазона об этой книге:

> Disappointing, February 27, 2000
> Reviewer: Jon Eckel from Los Angeles, CA

>I bought this book not so much for the ranking of top military personalities as I did for the brief biographies of them contained within. I was greatly disappointed on both counts.

>The ranking system used is bizarre and incomprehensible. The author places Washington at the top of his list because he was the founding father of the United States, which is undisputed as the dominant power in the world today. This makes the very dubious assumption that America would have remained a British colony if not for him. Furthermore, the United States did not become a major world power until 100 years after Washington's death. By contrast, Mao Zedong waged a successful struggle against the Japanese, crushed his opponents in the Chinese Civil War, and founded the People's Republic of China, which upon his death in 1976 was second only to the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. as a world power. In spite of these and other achievements, he is ranked 48th.

>Rounding out the top five are more inspired choices: Napoleon at #2, Alexander the Great at #3, Genghis Khan at # 4, and Julius Caesar at #5. Still, if _lasting_ influence is the main criteria, then the author has made more bad choices. Napoleon's empire lasted only 10 years, while Alexander's collapsed immediately after his death. Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire, however, dominated both Russia and China for centuries, and Caesar's conquests in France and elsewhere remained Roman territory for half a millenium.

>Things only get worse from then on. Hitler is ranked 14th while Stalin, who ultimately prevailed against him, does not appear at all. General Eisenhower is ranked 18th, while Marshal Zhukov is placed at 70th (there are only 2 Soviet WWII commanders listed in all, compared with 7 for America). Saddam Hussein, at 81st, is only two slots lower than Erwin Rommel! Napoleon's Marshal Ney made the list (albeit ranked at #96) but Marshal Davout, who was much better, did not.

>I might have still given this book two stars, or even three, if the biographies of the commanders were of any value. However, many contain factual errors as well as strange comments such as one passage which equates Robert E. Lee's generalship with that of Zulu chieftain Shaka. The bio of Attila the Hun, in particular, was a complete joke. I soon found myself unable to trust anything that the author wrote.

>There are other books available on the same theme that are probably much better than this one. For certain, they cannot be any worse.
С уважением Владимир http://bunburyodo.narod.ru
От Чингизид
К Владимир Несамарский (13.11.2000 18:30:17)
Дата 13.11.2000 19:06:43

стоило - чтобы другие баксы не тратили

или использовали в качестве пособия (два в одном): даты, фамилии (я признаюсь о некоторых и не слышал :), краткие биогр. данные и т.п.

C u
От Чингизид
К Чингизид (13.11.2000 19:06:43)
Дата 13.11.2000 19:07:47

Re: стоило - чтобы другие баксы не тратили

Приветствую !

>или использовали в качестве пособия (два в одном)

поправка: 100 в одном :)

C u