Keep in mind that the Mandalorian wars were being lost even with the Republic's best tacticians out on the field. The position of Mandalore is granted to a Mandalorian of not only extreme physical strength but also to one of impressive tactical abilities. Look at Mandalore the Indomitable, who worked with Ulic Qel Droma. He was placed as Ulic's head tactician.
Despite this, the battle was turned completely around ONLY when Revan joined the war. Turning the tide of battle just because of a single tactician speaks wonders about the said person's ability to strategize.
Revan was definately a great military general. Compared to Thrawn, I don't know, probably tied.
While certainly not THE greatest tactician, Revan was a tactical genius, even the Council admitted it. We know he was able to turn the tide against the Mandalorians, defeat Cassus Fett in a strategy battle, and had a habit of giving up strategically worthless areas in ruthless, but effective manuevers.
Malachor V was another stroke of brutal genius, and allowed Revan to kill Mandalore, dispose of his disloyal men and win the war
Wow I bet GL could tell you Revan was a skilled tactician and you would still be skeptical.*shakes head*
Of course I'd be skeptical that he's a skilled tactician. I mean, it's not like I mentioned in my initial post that I would have to admit that Revan is a pretty good tactician and definitely a strong leader.
When the creators of KOTOR made the game I doubt they were thinking "gee let's have these long conversations about Revan's tactical ability so we can provide exact data on his abilities and how he would fare in this situation or this one or blah blah" no instead they just added large amount of quotes ect to show that Revan was a skilled leader and strategist. But of course for you people who demand schematics for everything this isn't enough.
I'm sure just people blurting out "Revan is a master tactician" is sufficient enough to say that Revan > Thrawn, right?
Questions like how did Revan lay out his plans or what were they are are pointless.
Pointless? If we knew what exactly Revan did, how he planned it out, etc. that'd speak far greater for Revan. But, of course they're "pointless".
Clearly we know that however Revan planned or how his plans where laid out they were very effective. This is confirmed by multiple characters within KOTOR I and II.
And them being effective is evidence that he's on the margin with Thrawn? Or that Revan > Thrawn? Or Thrawn = Revan? Throughout this whole thing I've only been talking about Thrawn's abilities because we know what they were, and even from what we heard and know of Revan's battles, I'd submit that Thrawn > Revan, especially with Survivor's Quest.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
Of course I'd be skeptical that he's a skilled tactician. I mean, it's not like I mentioned in my initial post that I would have to admit that Revan is a pretty good tactician and definitely a strong leader.
I'm sure just people blurting out "Revan is a master tactician" is sufficient enough to say that Revan > Thrawn, right?
False assumption. You assume that just because I say Revan is a skilled tactician that I am saying he is better than Thrawn.
Pointless? If we knew what exactly Revan did, how he planned it out, etc. that'd speak far greater for Revan. But, of course they're "pointless".
And them being effective is evidence that he's on the margin with Thrawn? Or that Revan > Thrawn? Or Thrawn = Revan? Throughout this whole thing I've only been talking about Thrawn's abilities because we know what they were, and even from what we heard and know of Revan's battles, I'd submit that Thrawn > Revan, especially with Survivor's Quest.
I am not disputing that Thrawn is better. I am however disputing the statement that we no nothing about Revan's tactical abilities.
Ok so you would be skeptical if GL himself told you? Wow. And it is clearly seen that Revan is a good tactician and a strong leader.
Apparently you don't catch the drift of sarcasm. Read my initial post, I stated Revan is a good tactician and a strong leader. That's why it is in italics.
False assumption. You assume that just because I say Revan is a skilled tactician that I am saying he is better than Thrawn.
...False assumption? What the hell am I "assuming"? You said:
But of course for you people who demand schematics for everything this isn't enough.
And, I responded with that because obviously just saying someone is a good tactician is not indication of being superior or for the sake of this, doesn't indicate what he had done in battle, hence why his layout of wars does play a pretty decent sized role.
Of course we would, but we don't so it's pointless to assume that just because we have no exact details that it means we know nothing about Revan's tactical abilities.
Like I said above, how much do you even know? He defeated x, y, and z, but how? What kind of tactics did he imply in battle? How was he able to overcome his opponents, etc., etc.
I never said we know nothing, but we certainly don't know much besides he was good, and that his plans were effective.
I am not disputing that Thrawn is better. I am however disputing the statement that we no nothing about Revan's tactical abilities.
Again, I never said we know nothing, but what do we know other than the fact he's stated to be a "great tactician and military leader", and that his plans worked, which isn't all that much to go on.
I even went on further to say, and even from what we heard and know of Revan's battles, indicating that I acknowledge his praise. There's only a few instances of where it's even mentioned about the actual battles.
Also in the post you replied to, I was under the impression you were saying Revan is better, or trying to boast Revan over Thrawn, so my apologies.
Originally posted by Swirly Girl
Erm, provide an example of a battle that Revan won, and describe how he won, with specific examples to the tactics he used.Ooops! We can't!
Originally posted by Nactous
Lets see, on the battle of Dxun, Revan made his commanders force on, sacrificing any that he could to achieve the greater goal, using Republic soldiers as pawns.
That definitely tells us where we could place him on the scale of tactical ability, right? So, he was ruthless, and went for his goal, not worrying about his troops. Again, this tells us how much?
He, unlike Thrawn could easily convert people to his cause, making his, the greater army.
So he was more charismatic? This somehow speaks for his tactical abilities...? Thrawn had a lesser army, yet still no one in the New Republic could best him tactically.
And, unlike Thrawn Revan didn't need to capture ships, he made them.
You mean had the Star Forge create them.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
That definitely tells us where we could place him on the scale of tactical ability, right? So, he was ruthless, and went for his goal, not worrying about his troops. Again, this tells us how much?
It tells us he is willing to risk anything to win, which he did.So he was more charismatic? This somehow speaks for his tactical abilities...? Thrawn had a lesser army, yet still no one in the New Republic could best him tactically. The New Republic is a joke, just the remanents of the Rebel Alliance.
You mean had the Star Forge create them.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
That definitely tells us where we could place him on the scale of tactical ability, right? So, he was ruthless, and went for his goal, not worrying about his troops. Again, this tells us how much?That he is willing to sacrifice anything to win, whic he did, and has done.
So he was more charismatic? This somehow speaks for his tactical abilities...? Thrawn had a lesser army, yet still no one in the New Republic could best him tactically.
The New Republic is a joke.You mean had the Star Forge create them.
Ofcourse, I didnt think I needed to mention it the Star Forge.
Comparing Thrawn to the New Republic is like comparing a baby to a cat, both unexperienced, and one just being a little younger.
...What? Where in the world does a cat and a baby come in?
The New Republic had tacticians and fighters that had seen several yearsof war, up to nine years in some cases, while relatively new, they were not completely inexperienced, and they were even mentioned as being "better trained and motivated than the Empire's".
I must be missing the point somewhere because that whole "baby to a cat" threw me completely off. Time for some medication, Nactous?