| serge joe | 18 Oct 2014 7:55 a.m. PST |
to Al, Why not sack drunk comanders? plenty examples greetings serge joe |
 Mserafin  | 18 Oct 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
Because then you'd have no one left? |
| serge joe | 18 Oct 2014 8:46 a.m. PST |
You could replace them or shoot them example best to you al serge joe |
| Martin Rapier | 18 Oct 2014 9:19 a.m. PST |
Being drunk was a mandatory requirement in most armies, some navies too. Who cares if they are drunk? as long as they are attacking the enemy. |
| Skeets | 18 Oct 2014 9:47 a.m. PST |
I remember reading that when Lincoln was told that Grant was a drunkard he asked what he drank so he could send some to all his generals. |
| serge joe | 18 Oct 2014 9:54 a.m. PST |
Most russian general liked strong drinks greetings serge joe |
| Frederick | 18 Oct 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
Hardly the sort of thing to do to a proper gentleman In most European armies sacking generals with good aristocratic/political connections was a hard thing to do |
 deadhead | 18 Oct 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
but you could shoot them pour encourage les autres! |
| serge joe | 18 Oct 2014 10:37 a.m. PST |
Take of their estates greetings serge joe |
| KTravlos | 19 Oct 2014 10:54 a.m. PST |
Because
1) They are your winning coalition(Bruce Bueno De Mesquita et al). Make your winning coalition unhappy and you end up like Czar Paul I…dead 2) Troops smoked and drank. Moslem troops smoked (and some of them drank). War was always crap, and good drinking water scarce. So spirits were ubiquitous. I am not saying armies fought drunk, but probably tipsy. 3) If everybody does it ,then punishing one or the other would not deter it. |
| Lion in the Stars | 19 Oct 2014 3:01 p.m. PST |
You should only sack the generals when their drinking interferes with their ability to win. |
gets started with Flintloque.
