Re: What exactly does an NFL assistant coach do anyway?
MZ
> Recently the Jets hired former pro bowl safety Mark Carrier to be their
> new Defensive Line coach. Huh??? What does an ex-safety know about
> playing DL? Is teaching no longer part of a coach's responsibility? How
> exactly is Carrier going to school a new draft pick on the finer points
> of Nose Tackle technique, or show a DE what kind of moves will make him
> a better pass rusher? Or is he just there to make sure the right guys
> get on the field for the formation that's called? This confuses me. I
> don't understand how this move improves the team.
They say that good defenders know exactly what everybody else is doing.
Being immersed in the league for so long, I think they become experts
in the hows, regardless of position.
I remember when the Pats moved Pepper Johnson to DL coach and moved Matt
Patricia (former college OL, offensive assistant) to coach linebackers.
Patricia had a little more coaching experience than Johnson at the
time -- maybe the LB coach position is more "cerebral"?
Michael
> Recently the Jets hired former pro bowl safety Mark Carrier to be their
> new Defensive Line coach. Huh??? What does an ex-safety know about
> playing DL? Is teaching no longer part of a coach's responsibility? How
> exactly is Carrier going to school a new draft pick on the finer points
> of Nose Tackle technique, or show a DE what kind of moves will make him
> a better pass rusher? Or is he just there to make sure the right guys
> get on the field for the formation that's called? This confuses me. I
> don't understand how this move improves the team.
> graybeard
if you are a patriots assistant coach, you don't do a whole lot other
than get belichicks laundry while you are being covered in praise for
a job well done. of course, that will turn to criticism just as soon
as you sail away on your own.
and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
as you actually know what you are doing.
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:6fjln59lp9jkrcpm9...@4ax.com...
> will know the placement and responsibilities of everyone else on his
> unit, but once the ball is snapped he's gonna be pretty busy, so I don't
> see how he could really observe the details on how other guys go about
> their jobs. I suppose he could pick up some knowledge from film studies,
> but I don't believe that's the same as actually having played the
> position(s). The word is that Carrier wants to learn about other areas
> of defense so that he can become a Defensive Coordinator someday, and
> that's fine, but I would rather he started as assistant to a more
> experienced DL coach rather than jumping right into a job he is
> unfamiliar with. I've always felt that players from the other side of
> the ball would make good assistant coaches for positions they have
> played against, for example, an offensive tackle passing along pass
> rushing tips to a defensive end based on the techniques of all the DE's
> the OT has faced. But maybe that kind of thing goes on all the time at
> practice.
> --
> graybeard
two of the greatest offensively minded head coaches, Landry and Shula were
DBs.
you never know
MZ
And Belichick was a college OL.
papa.carl44
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Recently the Jets hired former pro bowl safety Mark Carrier to be their
> new Defensive Line coach. Huh??? What does an ex-safety know about
> playing DL? Is teaching no longer part of a coach's responsibility? How
> exactly is Carrier going to school a new draft pick on the finer points
> of Nose Tackle technique, or show a DE what kind of moves will make him
> a better pass rusher? Or is he just there to make sure the right guys
> get on the field for the formation that's called? This confuses me. I
> don't understand how this move improves the team.
> graybeard
This doesn't confuse me at all, especially from this particular perspective.
Carrier spent his whole career watching D linemen in front of him, plus he
is completely immersed in the entire defense. I coached for about 25 years,
when I played I mostly played offensive guard, fullback, and a hybrid
noseguard, linebacker thing...but when I coached I coached every position in
the game until finally becoming a linebacker coach and defensive
coordinator. Defensive players learn what the entire D is doing, and they
do understand technique too. Coaches spend most of their time going to all
kinds of clinics and spend countless hours working on technique. This is
not the pop warner deal where some local high school guy comes out to prove
how great he thinks he once was by creating a clone of himself as a running
back or QB. Coaches spend ALL of their time working on what they do. If
Carrier is a bright guy, and wants to be a top coach, he will be fine at
coaching the D line, when he was playing he had to know a lot of what they
were doing anyway. There are also lots of coaches who were quite good that
never played the game, but knew how to do it. OMHO, Papa Carl
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5a4f3d7a-4b6d-4544...@c28g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
If you have been around football for any legnth of time...really around it,
involved...you will find that position played has NOTHING to do with how
good a coach someone is. I was asked to become a track coach by the guy who
was the head track coach. I never was involved with track. He had watched
me coach linebackers and felt I would be a good sprint guy. He taught me, I
learned and we won a lot of races. I already knew how to motivate, control,
keep them working etc. The reaction fundamentals had a lot of carrry over
involved. I just don't see any problem here at all.
Michael
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
> >are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
> >players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
> >an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
> >a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
> >as you actually know what you are doing.
>
> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going to
> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
> you might get a little nervous.
> --
> graybeard
but at least the guy from supply could pull a few strings with the
quartermaster and get everyone extra body armor, bandages and
morphene :-)
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:31:36 -0500 "Ray O'Hara"
> <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> two of the greatest offensively minded head coaches, Landry and Shula
>> were
>>DBs.
>>you never know
>
> requires much more of an ability to see and manage the whole picture.
> Guys with that talent can have various backgrounds.
> --
> graybeard
they all started as position coaches.
Johnny Morongo
Fixed.
papa.carl44
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> seriously.
> --
> graybeard
Thank you. I spent a lot of time around it...the best QB coach I ever saw,
at high school and college levels was a center when he played at a D I
school. I know how to run the football, read blocking etc., I know how to
attack a defense far better than I could ever execute it. I coached my son
to be a running back and he was very successful in college...but I sure as
Hell could not play the way he did. I teach chords and scale patterns on
guitar to my granddaughter, but her young and quick fingers execute the
stuff better than I do after a few months of practice. But....she still
comes back when she can't remember stuff or gets confused, and I can watch
what she does and correct it. Coaches work hard at what they do....and if
they don't, they are simply not good coaches or teachers. I would rather
have a good teacher who works at his craft doing the coaching at any
position than a super star at that position who is not a good teacher.
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
>>are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
>>players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
>>an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
>>a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
>>as you actually know what you are doing.
>
> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going to
> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
> you might get a little nervous.
> --
> graybeard
U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful general,
was the regt quartermaster.
He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
Johnctx
Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
just not teh next we had.
That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
general.
Johnctx
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:p52mn55ri899uphfe...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
>>>> are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
>>>> players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
>>>> an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
>>>> a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
>>>> as you actually know what you are doing.
>>> Not all Generals came up through the infantry, but if you were in an
>>> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going to
>>> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
>>> you might get a little nervous.
>>> --
>>> graybeard
>>
>> U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful
>> general, was the regt quartermaster.
>> He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
> casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
>
> That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
> difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
> general.
fixed it
dee _ct
Michael
> >news:p52mn55ri899uphfe...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
> >>> are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
> >>> players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
> >>> an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
> >>> a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
> >>> as you actually know what you are doing.
> >> Not all Generals came up through the infantry, but if you were in an
> >> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going to
> >> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
> >> you might get a little nervous.
> >> --
> >> graybeard
>
> > U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful general,
> > was the regt quartermaster.
> > He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
>
> Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
> casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
> just not teh next we had.
>
> That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
> difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thomas ??? Interestng choise for most talented. And I assume you most
talented of the civial war.
I dont think Grants problem was that he just threw men into the meat
grinder. His reasoning was sound. Other than Wilderness he did not
piss human resources away due to bad decision making. I think Grants
BIG problem was that he overestimated/overvalued the quality of people
he chose as subordinants. Lots of his hand picked guys sucked and it
cost him/lives. My choice for most talented UNION guys would be
Hancock.
Johnctx
> he mixes the gatorade
>
Good one!
Ray O'Hara
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:OeOdndeGnJGBmeHW...@giganews.com...
LOL
Lost cause loser talk.
ever hear of Vicksburg or Fort Donelson?
Two Confederate armies captured all the men, guns and flags, 17,000 at
Donelson 30,000+ at Vicksburg.
Grant never lost 20,000 men in any battle, R.E.Lee did twice,
Lee was the Butcher not Grant.
Grant Faced 4 CSA armies in his campaigns, 3 he outright captured those of
Lee, Pemberton and Pillow.
the other he twice drove from the field in total defeat.
Thomas in his one battle as Army Commander Nashville allowed a much smaller
and worse eqiupped enemy army to escape.
Grant was America's best general and he is one of the All-Time Greats.
unlike every other general in the CW he understood the war.
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> general,
>>> was the regt quartermaster.
>>> He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
>>>
>>
>>Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
>>casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
>>just not teh next we had.
>>
>>That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
>>difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
>>general.
>
> be considered more successful than George Washington? Black Jack
> Pershing and Eisenhower were also pretty successful. "Most" is an
> awfully big word to throw around.
> --
> graybeard
He captured three CSA armies in the field and he defeated the remaining CSA
army twice{at Shiloh and Chattanooga}. He defeated and destroyed one of the
largest countries ever to be destroyed in world history.
G.W. did well. even if he was defeated 4 out of every 5 battles. Pershing he
was a junior player to the French and British.
Ike was a high level manager and never actually planned a battle or fought
one. he had a togh job but he was a diplomat.
Grant has been the relentless victim of lost cause mythology by the south
which has tried to act like they really won
and the actual result was just an incovenient technicality.
And not only did Grant show military genius in winning the war he showed
true greatness in the terms he gave Lee and the South at Appomattox.
the reason the war ended without trials and mass repression was due to
Grant.
After Grant the next best would be Winfield Scott.
Ray O'Hara
=================================================================
Atthe Wilderness Lee moved up and attacked Grant who was passing through it.
Lee attacked to try to force Grant back. he failed .
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:05:44 -0500 "papa.carl44"
> <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I would rather
>>have a good teacher who works at his craft doing the coaching at any
>>position than a super star at that position who is not a good teacher.
>
> has failed at being a coach or manager, seemingly because some athletes
> who have risen to the top of their sport solely because of superior
> natural talent do not comprehend how much work and study athletes with
> lesser ability have to put in to achieve success. On the other hand,
> secondary, or even marginal, players sometimes end up being excellent
> coaches because they themselves have had to compensate for lack of
> natural talent through effort and technique, and they are able to teach
> others how to do so as well.
> --
> graybeard
Ted Williams is a case in point.
he couldn't understand why others didn't hit pitches he thought we
meatballs.
Johnctx
Back to being an idiot huh? Lost cause loser talk? What the hell is
that about? My ancestors were in the west of Ireland during the Civil
war & I am from NYC.
In case you can't read. Did I write anything critical of Grant? Typical
Pats fan, it is like when people say BB is great coach & not the
greatest. Now let me help you out w/ some mild criticisms of Grant.
Vicksburg was a siege not a battle. Grant's two attacks failed & that
is is why he settled into a siege. One can argue that if he would have
planned better and been mildly less aggressive one of the attacks would
have worked. Fort Donselson was a success but Grant destroyed his navy
early on making it more difficult by again being over aggressive.
As for Thomas' at Nashville, are you insane? Yes he had superior numbers
but largely because he had destroyed Hood's army at the Battle of
Franklin where he had a largely green army & equal numbers to Hood. As
for allowing Hood to escape maybe he read Sun Tzu or maybe he realized
his job was to protect Sherman's rear and secure Nashville. Hood so
successfully escaped that he retired to Missippi, ner fought again & the
army of TN was no more.
First of all casualties can be misleading. I think it wasn't until
Korean that battlefield deaths exceeded disease in the American Army.
It may be WWII. Secondly if casualties are a litmus test then look at
Thomas' record. He won & took low casualties. Grant took 70-80,000
casualties in the last 7 weeks of the war. The right thing to do but
that doesn't make him great, just the right guy, for the right job.
Johnctx
Yes, comparing generals from different wars would be like comparing C
Young to a modern day pitcher.
Johnny Morongo
Revisionist, know it all Irish ejit.! ;) Just because you know your
stuff doesn't give you the right to come in her and wave a red flag
under Ray's nose. Sheesh.
Michael
unless you are making a comparison to decide the greatest general of
all time :-) and we all know who that was ;-)
Michael
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray... Wilderness did not cause the imballance of casualties that Cold
Harbor did, but if he followed throung at Wilderness on the first day
he really could have put Lee in the bag. The Overland Campaign had
Lee's army itself as a target but that didnt mean that Grant had to
ignore strategic oppertunities. From what I have read, there was
enough intel available for Grant leading up to the Wilderness for him
to be able to have made better moves at the outset of the battle.
After he lost the innitial chance that he didnt figure out that he
had, it was just a slug fest. Grant considers that Cold Harbor was
his big mistake, but I think he really blew a big chance at
Wilderness.
As far as Hancock goes.. His big mistake was not shooting Burnside. Or
at least gagging him and putting him in a closet until the war was
over.
Johnny Morongo
Alexander!
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
napoleon faught and won more capitol engagements than alexander,
hannibal, julius cesar and fredrick the great combined :-) no to
mention the crem brulee on the way back from moscow was devine...
Johnctx
How have you been? I wish I could spell half of the Italian cuss words
I know so I will just bite my hand although I am not sure what that means.
:)
Johnctx
Frederick the Great?
:)
Johnctx
It is interesting. We both chose gay generals.
Johnny Morongo
> Johnny Morongo wrote:
>>
>> Revisionist, know it all Irish ejit.! ;) Just because you know your
>> stuff doesn't give you the right to come in her and wave a red flag
>> under Ray's nose. Sheesh.
>
> How have you been? I wish I could spell half of the Italian cuss words
> I know so I will just bite my hand although I am not sure what that means.
>
> :)
I wish you could spell half the ENGLISH words you know. :)
Johnny Morongo
And you know this how, soap dropper?
Johnctx
ROFLPIP
I HATE when you are funny.
Johnctx
Funny again buffalo breath
Frederick ran off with a liutenant and was trying to escape to England.
He was brought back & his father had his lover killed in front of him.
He separated from his wife as soon as his old man died.
He was an interesting guy, he wrote music, was a highly respected
historian, pen pal to Voltaire and became one of the enlightened despots
after his warring, as opposed to his whoring, was over. A good example
is he created the civil service for his retired non-comms.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
huh ??? i dont get it... frederick belongs in a top twenty or even a
top ten list, but not a top five. certainly not a match for
napoleon. frederick did a fair job summing things up and seeing the
big picture on the battlefield, but he made a lot of tactical blunders
and he was unimaginative most of the time. he is not in the same
catagory with classical period guys like, julius and alexander, the
best of the hand full of middle age guys like al-Walid, Martel,
Saladin, and the most accomplished of the era, Charlamagne. or, the
best of the mechinized age generals who i consider to be von
manstein. i would not rank frederick above any of them. though, with
martel, you onlly have one major battle at tours. his best work and
vision was in the preperation. probably tours was the most important
battle in western history.
Johnny Morongo
From Wikipedia:
Modern historians, by contrast, are divided over the battle's
importance, and considerable disagreement exists as to whether or not
the victory was responsible � as Gibbon and his generation of historians
claimed, and which is echoed by many modern historians � for saving
Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam.
======================================================================
So, Michael, important maybe, but hardly, it would seem, "...the most
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
obviously, highly subjective/speculative... imho, tours was the most
important. more then a few social historians agree with me. given
the weak and fractious condition of western europe at that time, if
the caliphate won that battle, we would have a diferent europe.
speculative, yes... but not very given the ability of the opposition
to build and sustain. martel and his frankish/burgundian army was the
only force that had a chance to restrain them from getting a
foothold. europe was really haning from a thin string. people tend
to over look the importance of this battle because the total
combatants were below 50,000 vs another popular choice for "most
important", the battle of Chalons. at Chalons when the Romans at Goths
squared off agaisnt the Huns you had east vs west @ there were as
many as 200,000 combatants. i discout chalons while include tours
because the caliphate would have taken hold as was their norm where as
the huns would have left some horse shit in france before vanishing.
Johnny Morongo
>> claimed, and which is echoed by many modern historians � for saving
>> Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam.
>>
>> ======================================================================
>>
>> So, Michael, important maybe, but hardly, it would seem, "...the most
>> important battle in western history."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> obviously, highly subjective/speculative... imho, tours was the most
> important. more then a few social historians agree with me. given
> the weak and fractious condition of western europe at that time, if
> the caliphate won that battle, we would have a diferent europe.
> speculative, yes... but not very given the ability of the opposition
> to build and sustain. martel and his frankish/burgundian army was the
> only force that had a chance to restrain them from getting a
> foothold. europe was really haning from a thin string. people tend
> to over look the importance of this battle because the total
> combatants were below 50,000 vs another popular choice for "most
> important", the battle of Chalons. at Chalons when the Romans at Goths
> squared off agaisnt the Huns you had east vs west @ there were as
> many as 200,000 combatants. i discout chalons while include tours
> because the caliphate would have taken hold as was their norm where as
> the huns would have left some horse shit in france before vanishing.
I suspect, Michael, that in each age, century and millennium that there
may be one or more battles that might be called "the most important."
Could Alexander's defeat of Philip, or Stalingrad, or any number of
others in between qualify? Surely there have been many which might
stand as having been vitally important in terms of the way history has
turned out for us today. Every victory and every defeat to date have
had an important impact on where we are now, just as each of my own
personal victories and defeats have led me to this chair at this moment.
They were each as important, each providing a "mid-course correction"
that shaped the path to now.
All I'm saying is that I believe it is foolish to point to any one
battle in history, or any one event in a life as "the most important."
History, and life, are far too complex for that.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
sure... it is very complex... what if rome capitulated after canne ???
no battle of tours to consider i'd wager... and a million other forks
in the road... still... what is more silly ??? to study history and
make conclusions, suppositions and speculations or to ignore
historical significance or this event or that ??? i cant see how you
can study history and avoid exploring in such ways... battles like
tours and chalons and stalingrad are historical watersheds.
Johnctx
Michael, I view generals with what they have to work with and Prussia
was only a part of the HRE. When fighting only one country/kingdom he
won. At times he successfully fought Austria, France, Sweden, & Russia.
He like Napoleon inherited a well trained army. Unlike Napoleon he
didn't end up with a large country but if you don't believe me ask
Napoleon who after defeating the Prussians & Russians said at
Frederick's tomb," Gentlemen, this was one of the greatest commanders of
whom history has made mention. If he were alive to-day, I should not be
standing here."
Johnctx
Absolutes get you in trouble when discussing relative or subjective
events. History is shaped by inches, if the Seven's Years was goes
differently in Europe, if Hitler doesn't muck up the invasion of Russia
are good examples of how dramatic events could have leadto eenmore
dramatic results.
I hate when you are right.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
john... yes... all good points... that is i think why the "top tens"
or "best of" discussions are valuable. because they are subjective,
there is pride of authorship involved and you can be sure to get
inspired responses. of course one must know that when they use
superlatives they are asking for argument. best running back of all
time, best qb of all time, best general or most important battle. same
stuf and all enjoyable to kick around. like the "top ten" shows on
the history channel networks when they count down the best tank or the
best fighter aircraft and so on. it is informative but the primary
function is entertainment before scholarship.
Johnctx
I left out fought them all simultaneously.
The neat part about him is he fought for over 30 + years & was an
incredibly effective peace time leader after war. He was the true man of
the Enlightenment.
18th cent European history is fascinating and probably a lot of fun to
live in if you were an aristocrat, could avoid losing your head to a
cannon ball, and never caught the pox or whatever other disease could
kill you.
>> He like Napoleon inherited a well trained army. Unlike Napoleon he
>> didn't end up with a large country but if you don't believe me ask
>> Napoleon who after defeating the Prussians & Russians said at
>> Frederick's tomb," Gentlemen, this was one of the greatest commanders of
>> whom history has made mention. If he were alive to-day, I should not be
>> standing here."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> john... yes... all good points... that is i think why the "top tens"
> or "best of" discussions are valuable. because they are subjective,
> there is pride of authorship involved and you can be sure to get
> inspired responses. of course one must know that when they use
> superlatives they are asking for argument. best running back of all
> time, best qb of all time, best general or most important battle. same
> stuf and all enjoyable to kick around. like the "top ten" shows on
> the history channel networks when they count down the best tank or the
> best fighter aircraft and so on. it is informative but the primary
> function is entertainment before scholarship.
It is fun, it is like bar talk about sports, if it provokes thought then
it is good.
Michael
As far as military studies between the classical and modern age, the
Napoleonic era in europe is my favorite. as far as politics for me
the most interesting is the late 18th century into the mid 19th.
upheavals on the map and the death throws of the old social order.
imho, metternic has to be considered one of the most skilled and aware
politicians in European if not world history. the complexity that had
to be ballanced makes my head spin. i'm not a big kissinger fan, but
for anyone interested in the period, i gotta strongly recommend "a
world restored"
Johnny Morongo
Then you shouldn't read this forum because I'm ALWAYS right. ;)
Johnctx
Shut up buRf!
:)
Where is that loner?
Johnny Morongo
He's got his hands full getting a new business off the ground. I'm
hoping to catch up with him when we go back east at the end of April.