I thought it had to be a field commander. Galtieri never led any forces. His biggest battle was trying to get out of his uniform after getting drunk and throwing up on it.
Who was in charge of the Argentinian forces during the Falklands War? Arguably, they did a piss poor job even though they were handed a dubious task.
I guess if you have to pick the one person, it has to be Brigadier General Mario Menéndez, who was briefly Governor of the Islands and mainly responsible for defending them from the British after the Argentine invasion. I agree in general terms that he did a piss poor job, but you have to understand that the Junta never expected that Britain would make the effort to reclaim the Islands. They actually thought that they were tight with Reagan and Thatcher because of the assistance they were giving in Central America and because they were allies in the cold war, so they operated under the assumption that Britain and the US would do nothing. There wasn't much of a defensive plan, and the conscripts were poorly trained. And once Britain sent the fleet, Menendez was in a no-win situation. There are those -including some British analysts- who say that under the circumstances he did as well as he could in strategic terms. Others disagree. Some say Menendez deserves credit for surrendering early because he realized that defeat was inevitable and that if he held on longer and casualties mounted he'd probably not be able to keep malcontent troops and sergeants from taking revenge on the civilian population of the Islands. Reportedly the British who were negotiating with him expressed that fear to him, and he realized that it was a real danger, leading to his decision to give up. Apparently the leadership in Buenos Aires basically cut him off and left all the responsibility to him in the end, and it was his decision to surrender when he did. On the other hand, there are many stories of abuse and poor treatment of Argentine conscripts in the islands by their officers, and as the top authority on the islands Menendez should be held responsible for that. At any rate, Menendez belonged to the faction of the hard-liners in the armed forces, and he participated in the dirty war, and he was probably also involved in the idiotic decision to invade the Islands in the first place, so whatever unfair position he may have been put in, I wouldn't shed any tears for him. He was part of the evil.
I had thought that Menendez was the Falklands figure arrested (and later released) in Spain for his dirty war activities but that doesn't seem to be the case. I wonder who am I thinking of?
absolutely. the only possible pitfall would be a duff translation; difficult to convey the richness of his style without tottering into pomposity. i'm sure there have been several so make sure to get a good one. at the age of 14 victor hugo wrote in his notebook, "i want to be chateaubriand, or nothing". well, he didn't become nothing... but not chateaubriand neither!
I'm going to look for it in Spanish. I would imagine that a Frenchman's style would translate easier to Spanish than to English.
There are several versions in Spanish. I am told that the translation by Jose Ramon Monreal is very good. I think the only English translation of the full 42 books is by A.S. Kline. Guignol, what do you make of the allegations by some scholars that cast doubt on Chateaubriand meeting George Washington?
42 "books" really means 42 chapters, but it is possible there are a lot of abridged versions: in french the work is so often assigned in school that there are many of these. i never heard anything about such allegations, but on several other points chateaubriand stretched the truth so it is entirely possible that he never met washington. but chateaubriand was in the states at the period he says, the scene is very simple and has the ring of truth, so you can still say, se non è vero, è ben trovato.
Que? Do you mean the British Empire,as opposed to England. Slavery was regarded as illegal on English soil prior to the American revolution (the Somersett case). Anyway Michael Collins would of been my vote; Washington lost most of his battles and most of the others shortlisted (Rommel, Napolean) lost their wars. Collins may not of been a battlefield general but really understood the 'art' of guerrilla warfare to an astonishing degree.
Yes, how notable of you to make the distinction that the English only abhorred slavery if they could see it themselves.
IMO it should have been Napoleon. His track record, and the dread he caused in his enemies for most of his wars is just superb.
Voting Washington as the best reeks a bit of that Simpsons episode where Carnies swindle Homer Simpsons out of his home only Homer (with the help of his family) manages to turn the tables on them at the end, which leads to this exchange between the Carnies (father and son): http://stolemyshoes.com/post/8941288863/beaten-by-the-best
Collins should have won as he did it with fewest men and material. You could also argue that his tactics directly attributed to the whole collapse of the Empire.
Worst should be an American as well. Horatio Gates or John Hull or Wade Hampton or Henry Dearborn or Stephen Van Rensselear. If you are not a military history buff, you've never heard of these guys; that's because writing about them requires thinking about them in detail, which results in acute nausea. The Italians were military gods by comparison... search their biographies at your own risk, and be aware that the details are worse than the outlines-- much worse. Monroe most definitely met both Washington and Napoleon. I believe Quincy Adams did too... Looking into it a bit, Robert R Livingston administered Washington's first oath of office and was sent to Paris as Minister to France to work out the details on the Louisiana Purchase; one would think that he must have met Napoleon during that time. He also collaborated with Fulton on the steamboat project... John Armstrong Jr succeeded Livingston as minister to France in 1804 and served there until 1810. He had known Washington during the Revolution as part of Gates' staff, and he surely met Napoleon at least once. Joel Barlow, his successor, may have met Washington during the Revolution-- he was a relatively minor figure, a chaplain in a Massachusetttes regiment-- and was scheduled to meet Napoleon at Vilma, but the meeting was cancelled at the start of the retreat from Russia, and he died in the course of that retreat. I checked the various British ambassadors to the US, and they either were in France before the rise of Napoleon or in the US after the death of Washington. I can't find much of anything on French diplomats in the US; however Lafayette surely met both men.
well, if you know what you're talking about, sheesh... try making it up as you go along the way i do, you'll see life's not that easy, wise guy!
You could, but it'd be pretty stupid. Ireland also had the advantage of the least will to prevent independence, especially straight after WWI. Besides, history has shown that unless a government is willing to flood an area with soldiers, any nation wanting independence gets it.
I think this was a very interesting decision considering Napoleon... I studied at Oxford (briefly), and found it extremely interesting how much a few of my instructors found that "squabble on the Continent" to be a "squabble" lol
If you can include naval commanders, how about Alonso Pérez de Guzmán, 7th Duke of Medina Sidonia, head of the Spanish "Invincible" Armada? Also, them blaming Washington for the ethnic atrocities of the 19th century is intellectually dishonest. Is Hitler the fault of Kaiser Wilhelm I? Is Stalin the fault of Peter the Great? Is Kim-il Sung the fault of Dejong?
and ofcourse washington was a great commander he was of manly ENGLISH stock unlike those frooty latin's and catholics that came later ow what did I just do