POTF 4 - Winner and Runner-Up

[Aexodus]

This week, in a close competition we have a tie. As per the rules, both winners will be equally rewarded.

The joint winners of POTF 4 were Dick Cheney. and Lord Oda Nobunaga, earning 1 competition point and 5 rep points each. You’ll have to share the glory this week glads. (I am glad now we made that last minute addition of a tie clause )

Winning Posts

Who was Alexander's greatest teacher?

“I am indebted to my father for living, but to my teacher for living well.” –Alexander the Great Alexander is generally considered one of the most accomplished and influential military leaders of all-time, but when balancing the realm of his feats and accomplishments its clear he had a ton of help: Who then among Alexander's many contemporaries (rivals, mentors, or companions) deserves to be recognized alongside Alexander? Note: this is not a thread about who primarily deserves credit for Alexander's success (lady luck deserves first place for that) but rather who might have taught or influenced Alexander the most. Which person had the greatest impact on Alexander? Alcibiades being taught by Socrates Some nominations: Philip II - The most obvious choice. No other person can claim more credit for Alexander's generalship, education, military training, political upbringing, and art of war then Philip II of Macedon (creating an army and phalanx system that Alexander used to conqueror the known world -in this discussion- doesn't count). Philip was also the one who introduced Alexander to Aristotle at age 13, army life at age 16, made Alexander his regent (also age 16), and appointed Alexander a major command post at the Battle of Chaeronea (age 18). Philip again, was also the one who shared with Alexander the original battle plans for the conquest of Persia. If the criteria of a great teacher then is providing ample opportunities for the student to learn, participate, and observe, then Philip II wins first place. Where Philip falls short of course are the marriage disputes, jealousy, and "daddy issues," (at one point leading to Alexander's exile) and the fact that Philip's sudden assassination (both a curse and boon for Alexander) created loyalty issues with Philip's old guard. Alexander would struggle for their trust and support for much of his adult life (though the unending desire to escape his father's shadow and prove his worth time and again could also be used as an influence argument in Philip's favor). Olympias - The next obvious choice. Alexander, according to some historians, was spurred on by his mother. From his mother he gained a fiery and violent temper, as well as an inclination towards rage, privilege, and entitlement. It was Olympias after all who first whispered into Alexander's ear that he was divine and that he should be king over his petulant father. To Olympias's credit she also taught Alexander to disregard most material possessions (through Leonidas's mentorship and religious piety) and how to use back-channel manipulation for political gain. Nobody assisted Alexander's rise to the throne more than Olympias, though her unconfirmed role in Philip's assassination of course, does not count as influence in this discussion. Aristotle - One of the most brilliant minds who has ever lived and Alexander's teacher for three years. Would have taught philosophy, literature, rhetoric, geography, mathematics, geometry, and basic zoology; the equivalent of a privileged education in Greece. Beyond that however, it is highly speculative whether Alexander (a man of action) was really all that influenced by the great thinker. Achilles - Alexander's favorite superhero. To Achilles, Alexander owes his personality as well as his disregard for physical danger, his love of risk taking, single-combat, blood and battle, and life or death defying courage. Achilles influence on Alexander is all the more impressive considering (according to Arrian) that Alexander was not of a very impressive build and probably not that athletic. No doubt though, Alexander still deserves credit for being one of the most courageous (or insane) warrior kings to have ever lived. Darius III- Darius was Alexander's greatest rival who held the title "king of kings" and most commanding man in the world before Alexander. If you believe then that Alexander was motivated by glory (which his conquests and adoption of Darius's family, titles, and kingdom as his own seems to suggest) then Darius's mere existence had a huge impact on Alexander. It was Alexander after all, who desperately wanted to be Darius (king of kings), and hurriedly chased after him in every battle. Cyrus the Great - If you believe Alexander was a benevolent ruler (not sure if he was really a peacemaker in my opinion, but to each his own), then you may point to Cyrus the Great as having had the greatest impact on Alexander. Before great kings bowed at the tomb of Alexander, they bowed before the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the greatest conquer and nation builder the world had ever known. Alexander did of course visit the tomb of Cyrus the Great where some say his cultural fusion plans were an attempt to relive and outdo the other's legacy. Hephaestion - The most interesting pick and Alexander's closest friend. The only person Alexander may have considered an equal. At his death, Alexander insisted that Hephestion be worshiped as a god, where he also became manically depressed at his young friend's passing. Unfortunately however, most historical evidence shows that Hepahestion may have mostly lacked in any kind of obvious military skill or political talent. His role again seems to be more of a friend and companion than any kind of political adviser and second in command. The Oracle at Swia - Famously proclaimed and confirmed that Alexander was the Son of Zeus. Obviously had a huge impact on Alexander's life. Diogenes - The legendary stoic philosopher from Athens, and maybe the only person ever to b-slap Alexander philosophically and then live to tell about it. Legend has it that Alexander offered to Diogenes the entire world and as a gift anything he could possibly want, but to Diogenes' credit he appropriately told the boy king to go **** himself. Stunned by the philosopher's dignity and self worth, Alexander is quoted as saying he wishes he were more like Diogenes than anyone else who had ever lived. Alexander's constant whining and thin skin however, suggests that maybe Alexander never learned a thing from Diogenes. Demosthenes and The Resistance Party - Demosthenes and Greek detractors were a constant thorn in young Alexander's side. If you believe then that Alexander had thin skin to the extreme, then his struggle to win a good name in Athens -and prove he was Greek- was a huge motivating force in his life. The Army and General Staff - A point that is gaining more attention from historians and leadership experts. The argument is Alexander needed the army more than the army ever needed him (which could go either way; for example, what happens to the Macedonian army if Alexander dies in battle?) and the theory that his generals were constantly scheming to usurp him. In order then to maintain the army's loyalty and support, Alexander had to constantly lead by heroic selfless example. He had to constantly prove that he was the fittest and the bravest or somebody else from the Macedonian warrior culture would mutiny and take his place. Alexander therefore, was a slave to the ambitions of his generals and the moral needs of his army, constantly at war with both. In the end, Alexander pushed the army as far as it could go and may have exhausted himself in the process. No one - The maverick pick. Alexander was a historical outlier. An adolescent, angry, genocidal, war-mongering megalomaniac and momma's boy who should give all the credit in the world to his incredible good fortunate. No alcoholic drunk, reckless gambler, or psychopathic prince has ever benefited so much from outcome bias. His accomplishments were either borrowed from the works of others or works of luck. He is more myth than man, but as a boy king he listened and looked up to no one. He truly believed he was a god and could do no wrong. War and glory (to include imposing his will on others) were thus his playground and his true legacy is that of an ego-centric narcissistic monster given way too much power to play with. All the above - Another solid pick. Alexander is a complicated figure and it probably does no good to try and psycho analyze him. However, historians should still speculate whether somebody else without Alexander's unique tutelage and upbringing could also have conquered Persia. This is important when validating (or disproving) the Great Man Theory and its impact on history. Philip II, Antiperer and Antiperer's son, Cassander, bring this last point into debate.

Discussion and Debate Community Thread

We would have to define what Libertarian means in this case. There was certainly an element of private enterprise and free market economics. The idea being that people could engage with the market so long as the government could direct the government and their efforts. Of course this was not so much the original goal of Fascism as a Socialist concept. But because Hitler and Mussolini lacked the resources to implement a full Socialist system they chose to make concessions and engage with the market to acquire capital but regulated by the state. This would lead some to claim that Fascism was actually "State Capitalism" but that is to ignore the basic premise of Fascism and the complex system of Germany and Italy's economics. There was also a conflict among Leftists that Syndicalism was not true Socialism and was really just State Capitalism. But this is just an autistic semantic argument with no real importance in reality or pragmatic implementations. By that train of thought modern China as of Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao isn't Communist. But I don't see why it can't be both Communist and Capitalist. The fact is that China only "reformed Communism" due to the fact that Mao's collectivization and command economy had failed. It is similar to Fascist, State Capitalist, other Socialist and Syndicalist models but in this case one which emerged entirely from Communism and the need to pursue practical policies rather than theories. This isn't much different from what Lenin or Stalin attempted later on either, once Marxist economic policies had failed. Just that Post-Reform China has taken these attempts to new extremes. It really wasn't Capitalist it was a form of Socialism which from necessity depended on private enterprise rather than total collectivism. Though unlike various forms of Marxism, Fascism had an emphasis on individual interests and private property. It is therefore curious that many claim that Fascism was influenced by Erich Ludendorff's Total State Principles. However this is to overestimate Ludendorff's intellectual contributions and to take the Total State out of context, both ideologically and historically. Ludendorff was writing in the aftermath of WW1 in which Germany's defeat was largely attributed to their inability to create a Total War economy. Ludendorff theorized that total control over the state would allow for the state to more easily seize production and resources for the purpose of waging war. However Germany did not have sufficient capital to implement these policies or win such a war. As such it was Hans von Seeckt who suggested that Germany acquire their capital through private enterprise. He also advocated for a professional army rather than a large army formed through conscription, which was the impetus for the Wehrmacht. Seeckt was more influential than Ludendorff. The only major changes which Hitler made were to expand the Wehrmacht and introduce conscription. In a way Seeckt was correct but largely incorrect. While his assessment that Germany did not have the means to form a Total War economy and that allowing war industrialists to build up the armed forces was more practical, he was ultimately incorrect. Relying on various corporations actually made German war production a mess. Without the central control of the state or standardized production the Germans were outproduced by the Soviets, who carried this out entirely through collectivist policies. If we have established that in spite of extreme collectivism, the Soviets actually had better production then why did the Germans not simply implement total collectivism? Well there are a lot of reasons. For starters the Germans simply did not have the resources nor the means to implement these policies. This easily explains why Hitler waited until 1942 to mobilize the state for Total War. They had immense shortages of fuel and raw materials, in order to maximize these resources they had to resort to diverting production towards synthetic materials and also rationing resources to take them out of the domestic market. Essentially this caused mass famine, which was also a problem in USSR and Britain but alleviated through lend lease. The Germans also had to pay these corporations through credit and the equivalent of warbonds, much like in America and Britain. Why did they have to pay to implement a war economy? Because by taking these resources to fuel the war economy it removed them from the domestic market and so they needed a way to exchange physical resources and produce, or else not have this in the economy at all. Credit was the only way to do it, they had nothing else. But unlike the USSR which collectivized their production, resources and labour they did not have easy access to private property. But yeah, the bottom line is that by not collectivizing the Germans actually made production a nightmare. They were not on the right track until 1942 when they implemented Total War and industrialists such as Albrecht Speer helped to develop the war economy. But the reason that this war economy failed was simply because the Germans lacked the resources to fuel it, unlike America and USSR. Why were Hitler and Mussolini unable to implement Socialist and Collectivist policies? Largely they lacked the industry or resources to do so. However this doesn't explain why they didn't try to do it sooner. The reason being that the Conservatives and Liberals in power were against it. For instance Hitler had to fight against his generals and policy makers, just to implement conscription in 1935. Ultimately Hitler was proven correct and Hans von Seeckt and his subordinates were wrong. On this technicality Ludendorff was correct. When it comes to economics and government Hitler had to appeal to the Conservatives and Liberals to come into power and to keep his power. This largely included the army which was controlled by Prussian aristocrats (likewise in Italy, the monarchist aristocracy). The radical elements of the Nazi party wanted to implement a revolution, purge the state and military and called out Hitler for conceding to the aristocracy and only implementing reforms. When they conspired to overthrow the state these were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. However it is fair to say that Roehm had a point. Had the Germans gone full Stalin and taken total control of the state they would have likely been able to implement more efficient policies, carried out production far better (not having to rely on various uncoordinated corporations), had a better war economy and as a caveat no attempts by the officers to blow up Hitler, nor officers like Canaris to give intel to the British. Quite likely the Germans would have performed better militarily as well, no old school Prussians attempting outdated maneuvers and tactics.

It was such a tough contest that posts 1, 2, 8 and 9 are all joint runners up.

Until the next POTF