Ultimate Historical Meeting - Spoiler

[DJS]

I always liked the historical cameos in Assassins' Creed but KCD2 has exceeded all those meetings with the fact you get to hang out with Jan Zizka, the greatest general in history. As a historian (been teaching it 30+ years) this is my best moment in a video game and I have played them for 40+ years.

[Haddon]

How in the world do you consider Zizka the greatest general in history? I could see you considering him the greatest battlefield commander, maybe, but overall general?

[Bukkacracy]

He's not even top 20

[rolfvonsmirker]

İlk olarak DJS tarafından gönderildi:

the greatest general in history

lmao even

[joxertm22]

Man, just ignore comments from the brightest students that got their phd from the most prestigious university in the world - facebook.

Thanks for your input.

[Damphair]

İlk olarak DJS tarafından gönderildi:

Pfft... being lectured by children who have limited knowledge of history... hilarious.

Exactly what an armchair historian would say.

[DJS]

İlk olarak Haddon tarafından gönderildi:

How in the world do you consider Zizka the greatest general in history? I could see you considering him the greatest battlefield commander, maybe, but overall general?

Fair enough. Battlefield commander better describes his expertise.

[Krono]

Zizka was an exceptional tactician, he won many battles when he was outnumbered and faced with better trained, better equipped enemy soldiers. I don't know enough about the Hussite wars to comment on how good of a strategist he was though. Tactics win battles, strategy wins wars.

[DJS]

Calm down kiddies. Just expressing joy at the inclusion of a significant historical figure. Don't give a flying f### what some non-historians think of my comment.

[Gyno]

I Also do Historical Medioeval Larping and Camps aswell fencing with swords.
Fiore De Liberi school (There's a tecnique of him in the game!).
This games has its flaws but damn. I'm finally home when it comes to Medioeval times.
Kudos to you

[Haddon]

For GOAT general, I might go with Li Shimin (Emperor Taizong). He, and his sister, were the reason their father became Emperor, overthrew the Sui, founded the Tang, defeated the northern Wei and Qi revolts, and fought one of the single most impressive campaigns in pre-modern military history up the Fen River.
Greatest combo of two people (father and son) would be Lu Buwei and his son, who because King Zheng, and then Emperor Qin Shihuang Di. Lu Buwei reformed the military and economic system to the point he could place his son on the throne, who then used an army that was still using bronze to conquer the rest of China, which was using iron. They are like Chinese Philip and Alexander, except the system they created didn't shatter before it could be solidified.

[Galactic-Tactics]

Eh, it's probably Hannibal. But let the guy be excited for Zizka if he likes him.

[Haddon]

İlk olarak Galactic-Tactics tarafından gönderildi:

Eh, it's probably Hannibal. But let the guy be excited for Zizka if he likes him.

Hannibal won three battles, one of which was an ambush, and then did nothing impressive with the rest of his life. He only held southern Italia because Capua sided with him. While he stayed there, Carthage lost Spain, their toehold in Sicily, both of his brothers and his uncle died and lost massive numbers, Hannibal lost 1/3 of his troops to disease for no reason, and then they lost Africa resulting in Carthage facing a massive revolt by the mercenaries AGAIN. Which got his entire family exiled. He THEN tried to get Antiochus to fight the Romans, resulting in Magnesia, the single worst defeat for the Seleucids probably in their history.

Hannibal is entirely overrated as a general. He was a brilliant tactician, but was absurdly bad at logistics and campaign strategy, and even worse at political strategy. His entire plan was "we will get the Italians on our side!" and almost none of them sided with him, because they hated Carthage too.

[Krono]

İlk olarak Haddon tarafından gönderildi:

Hannibal won three battles, one of which was an ambush, and then did nothing impressive with the rest of his life. He only held southern Italia because Capua sided with him. While he stayed there, Carthage lost Spain, their toehold in Sicily, both of his brothers and his uncle died and lost massive numbers, Hannibal lost 1/3 of his troops to disease for no reason, and then they lost Africa resulting in Carthage facing a massive revolt by the mercenaries AGAIN. Which got his entire family exiled. He THEN tried to get Antiochus to fight the Romans, resulting in Magnesia, the single worst defeat for the Seleucids probably in their history.

Hannibal is entirely overrated as a general. He was a brilliant tactician, but was absurdly bad at logistics and campaign strategy, and even worse at political strategy. His entire plan was "we will get the Italians on our side!" and almost none of them sided with him, because they hated Carthage too.

Hannibal won a hell of a lot more than three battles, and almost always in scenarios where he was outnumbered. Cannae in particular is considered one of the most stunning military victories in human history. Yeah, his grand strategy was a bit lacking, "You know how to win a battle but not how to use it" and all that, but I think he deserves a lot more credit than you're giving him here. Spending almost 20 years behind enemy lines, with almost no support from the government that claims to be on your side, is no small feat in strategic terms.

[Haddon]

İlk olarak Krono tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Haddon tarafından gönderildi:

Hannibal won three battles, one of which was an ambush, and then did nothing impressive with the rest of his life. He only held southern Italia because Capua sided with him. While he stayed there, Carthage lost Spain, their toehold in Sicily, both of his brothers and his uncle died and lost massive numbers, Hannibal lost 1/3 of his troops to disease for no reason, and then they lost Africa resulting in Carthage facing a massive revolt by the mercenaries AGAIN. Which got his entire family exiled. He THEN tried to get Antiochus to fight the Romans, resulting in Magnesia, the single worst defeat for the Seleucids probably in their history.

Hannibal is entirely overrated as a general. He was a brilliant tactician, but was absurdly bad at logistics and campaign strategy, and even worse at political strategy. His entire plan was "we will get the Italians on our side!" and almost none of them sided with him, because they hated Carthage too.

Hannibal won a hell of a lot more than three battles, and almost always in scenarios where he was outnumbered. Cannae in particular is considered one of the most stunning military victories in human history. Yeah, his grand strategy was a bit lacking, "You know how to win a battle but not how to use it" and all that, but I think he deserves a lot more credit than you're giving him here. Spending almost 20 years behind enemy lines, with almost no support from the government that claims to be on your side, is no small feat in strategic terms.

He won 3 battles. He won lots and lots of small engagements afterward, but he only won 3 battles (against the Romans, at least. He won against Gauls and Iberians, but those were foregone conclusions). He marched over the Alps and lost almost half of his troops doing so. He spent 15 years in southern Italy, but was constantly supplied by Capua, because the other Oscans wanted to throw off Samnite and Latin control of the city, and because the Romans decided it would be a bad idea to attack him again in a large battle. So instead, they cut off his supplies.
Carthage repeatedly tried to send him supplies, but the Romans destroyed one fleet, captured a second, and the third sailed into a storm. They tried to get Philip V on their side, so Rome sent an expedition against Apollonia and cut off any possible supplies from the Macedonians or Greeks reaching Hannibal. So then Carthage decided to try to aid the Spanish front instead, sent them supplies and troops...and they got wiped out.
He wasn't even "behind enemy lines"; the area around Capua, Naples and Brundisium sided with him, it was more like spending more than 15 years ravaging lands that were a checkerboard of Roman and Carthaginian control, just like Sicily had been in the First Punic War.

Tactics are rad, I love learning them. But logistics win, or lose, wars. And he had no ability whatsoever with logistics. His campaign strategy was incredibly bold...in the same way Operation Barbarosa was, or Napoleon's invasion of Egypt or Russia were, or Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions. Tactically brilliant, strategically and logistically completely unsound (at least minus one of Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions).

[lemonsqueezer97]

I agree, the ability to interact and work with characters based off of these real figures from history is part of what makes the KCD games so appealing to me