11 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWill a measure of fictionalizing possibly calm this teapot tempest down?
Hi, GP. I love this one too. It's one of a dozen hand picked quotations resting in my profile:
"My left is weakened. My right is broken. The situation is excellent. I'm on the attack."
Field Communiqué to Headquarters, Marshal Foch (British Commander, 1851-1929)
gb
gb
11 Oct 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis will be the last off topic post I promise. My sources for the French Military thing come from QI (a television programme in the UK) which gets serialised into books for expats like me. This is the excerpt in question:
Will a measure of fictionalizing possibly calm this teapot tempest down?
gb
"Which country is the most successful military power in European history?
France. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.
The British tend to be rather selective about the battles they remember. Every English schoolboy was once able to recite the roll call of our glorious wins at Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415), but no one’s ever heard of the French victories at Patay (1429) and (especially) at Castillon (1453), where French cannons tore the English apart, winning the Hundred Years War and confirming France as the most powerful military nation in Europe.
And what about the Duke of Enghien thrashing the Spanish at Rocroi late on in the Thirty Years War in 1643, ending a century of Spanish dominance? Or the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781, when General Comte de Rochambeau and American forces prevailed? The British always prided themselves on superiority at sea, but knew they could never win a land war on the Continent.
France’s achievements help to explain another French “military victory”. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is French."
That W-D-L ratio is worthy of a good chess player here (they may need to learn how to force a few more draws though 😉 )
11 Oct 11
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedThanks Dutchess, i remember doing the subject when i was studying for my highers,
although its rather vague now. I have one volume still lying around, Europe since
Napoleon by David Thomson although its very general and not specific like these fine
tomes that you mention 🙂
11 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by morgskiWill you please stop using the terms English and British, as if they are synonymous.
This will be the last off topic post I promise. My sources for the French Military thing come from QI (a television programme in the UK) which gets serialised into books for expats like me. This is the excerpt in question:
"Which country is the most successful military power in European history?
France. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, of the of a good chess player here (they may need to learn how to force a few more draws though 😉 )
Sooo annoying to other nationalities who reside within the British Isles and that
applies to you Americans as well. The number of times I was asked, 'have you any
plans to go back to England', when i was living overseas, was horrendous, for i dont
live in England, i never have lived in England, i dont sound English, you think that
tartan kilt with no underpants might have been a clue, but nooooo.
11 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was directly quoting the QI book Robbie, so it wasn't my bad this time 😉
Will you please stop using the terms English and British, as if they are synonymous.
Sooo annoying to other nationalities who reside within the British Isles and that
applies to you Americans as well. The number of times I was asked, 'when are you
going back to England', when i was living overseas, was horrendous, for i dont live in
England ...[text shortened]... d English, you think that tartan kilt
with no underpants might have been a clue, but nooooo.
I know full well from spending 5 years in Edinburgh just how pissed off the Scottish get with this, especially when is from the British(?) media (e.g. "British hope Andy Murray into the Wimbledon semi-finals; Dejected Scot Andy Murray out to awesome Nadal" etc.). The main problem is that most Londoners think Watford is The North, showing just how little they know about the island they live on...
11 Oct 11
Originally posted by morgskiYou are cordially forgiven my friend, anyone who can reside in Edinburgh for five years
I was directly quoting the QI book Robbie, so it wasn't my bad this time 😉
I know full well from spending 5 years in Edinburgh just how pissed off the Scottish get with this, especially when is from the British(?) media (e.g. "British hope Andy Murray into the Wimbledon semi-finals; Dejected Scot Andy Murray out to awesome Nadal" etc.). The main problem ...[text shortened]... hink Watford is The North, showing just how little they know about the island they live on...
and still think that he is living in a part of Scotland deserves full respect. During your
time did you visit the exhibits in the castle? did you see the utterly astounding models
of ships carved in intricate detail by the French prisoners of war from animal bones
during their incarceration. They are amazing.
11 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll have to go next time I'm in town, Google Images (funny how useful that site is...) suggests I missed out. Certainly looks more exciting than the Falkirk Wheel...
You are cordially forgiven my friend, anyone who can reside in Edinburgh for five years
and still think that he is living in a part of Scotland deserves full respect. During your
time did you visit the exhibits in the castle? did you see the utterly astounding models
of ships carved in intricate detail by the French prisoners of war from animal bones
during their incarceration. They are amazing.
11 Oct 11
10 edits
Originally posted by morgski"That W-D-L ratio is worthy of a good chess player here (they may need to learn how to force a few more draws though."
This will be the last off topic post I promise. My sources for the French Military thing come from QI (a television programme in the UK) which gets serialised into books for expats like me. This is the excerpt in question:
"Which country is the most successful military power in European history?
France. According to the h."That W-D-L ratio is worthy of of a good chess player here (they may need to learn how to force a few more draws though 😉 )[/b]
Ditto Part B of your knowledgeable post. In the view of my early mentors, Wins plus Draws should ideally total at least 80%, irrespective of the players present level of prowess. Their rationale: 1) That achieving this goal enables lower rung patzers to play like GM's, many of whom agree early and often to draws in tournaments. 2) That being mindful of an unstated 80% plus win/draw performance personal best goal serves to inculcate thoughtful deliberation (in both preparation and otb) as well as the noble virtue of patience. Mine at RHP has slipped to 79% since returning from a serious medical nine month layoff. 😞
Part A regarding war itself I politely disagree. Only pragmatic objective in the reciprocal carnage of actual war is to devastate the hillside, annihilate the enemy and destroy its will to fight. The price of a nation's decision to go to war, in terms of blood and treasure, is always far too steep to settle for anything less than unconditional surrender as in 'vanquish'. Whether we like it or not, wars are inevitable. Military victory has always been and still is the price of freedom. Only real world alternative is to allow the anthithesis of immediate and forced or uncoerced and gradual bondage.
gb
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20016
11 Oct 11
I don't understand the reasoning behind your statement that W+D > 80%. This can in fact only be achieved if your opponents are on average weaker than yourself. Unless D>60%, because we then have W=20%, D=60%, L=20%. The first option is impossible to achieve for everybody. The second option would make chess very boring.
Could you explain why this should be the goal please?
11 Oct 11
Gosh. Had no idea the Larsen quote would start a war.
(I think the quote is in his best games which I gave away to a friend.)
Tp get the thread back on topic perhaps someone can work out the
FIDE grades of the Nations and the wars they won/lost/drew.
(How do you draw a war - everyone losses the moment the first shot is fired,)
The Romans must be up near the top and if I remember my history
Switzerland did not lose many either.
Hi morgski & Robbie
Edinburgh is without a doubt the most beautiful and interesting city
in the world. Nothing else comes close.
The down side are the people. They can be very selective and close.
Glasgow (Robbie's land) I've always found ugly by comparison but the people
are top drawer.
Get lost in Glasgow, as I often do because there are no land marks to guide you,
ask a stranger for help and you will have a friend for life.
Get lost in Edinburgh which is nigh impossible as the Castle and Arthurs seat
tower over the city giving you your bearings.
However should you ask an Edinburgh person for assistance the chances are
they will totally ignore you or call the police.
11 Oct 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34I like Kevin Bridges' comparison between the two great cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow:
Gosh. Had no idea the Larsen quote would start a war.
(I think the quote is in his best games which I gave away to a friend.)
Tp get the thread back on topic perhaps someone can work out the
FIDE grades of the Nations and the wars they won/lost/drew.
(How do you draw a war - everyone losses the moment the first shot is fired,)
The Romans must ...[text shortened]... nburgh person for assistance the chances are
they will totally ignore you or call the police.
"In Edinburgh, if a gun goes off, it's 1 o'clock..... And we should probably leave it there"
😀
Working out the FIDE for countries would prove difficult, Yugoslavia would probably get banned under TOS for having multiple accounts 😉
11 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by tvochessYour present profile shows 56% wins... 3% Draws... 41% Losses.
I don't understand the reasoning behind your statement that W+D > 80%. This can in fact only be achieved if your opponents are on average weaker than yourself. Unless D>60%, because we then have W=20%, D=60%, L=20%. The first option is impossible to achieve for everybody. The second option would make chess very boring.
Could you explain why this should be the goal please?
Mine shows fewer wins with 54%... 25% Draws and Losses 21%.
"Could you explain why this should be the goal please?"
To avoid the worst case possible scenario...
LOSSES!!!
😉