|
| Thread: For those of you who like history... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
frostwolf
Famous Hero
livin' in a bottle of vodka
|
posted June 07, 2004 11:22 PM |
|
|
For those of you who like history...
Ok, I know there are a few people here who are interested in hiostory (PrivateHudson, are you there?). So I was just wondering, who do you think is the greatest general ever? If people respond, we could maybe talk abou strategy and so on. Anyway, here is my top: 1.Gengis Khan
2.Alexander the Great
3.Napoleon (I really don't like him, but he was good, I'll give him that)- if it wasn't for him I'd choose Hannibal
____________
What can you expect from a world where everybody lives because they're too afraid to commit suicide?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 07, 2004 11:29 PM |
|
|
Can I Make A Point?
I would simply like to say that a "great general" is not always one who wins the battle or the war. Sometimes an ancillary role is just as significant, if not more important in some cases than a leading one.
I'd like to add two other generals to the list of possible candidates.
1. Robert E. Lee
2. Edward Rommel
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 12:01 AM |
|
|
PLease make a distinction before i post a word further.
general, leader or barbarian? Which one are we discussing about?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 12:29 AM |
|
|
Lee was a strategic genius, not so brilliant at directing engagements and so on, but still my choice for best US general. Lee also gets a mention as one of the greatest humanitarians in the ranks of history's generals. An annecdote from Gettysburg reveals much about him. A Union officer recalled after the war lying terribly injured (IIRC he'd lost a leg to a cannonball) on the field when he sighted Lee. Though in great pain he raised himself up a little and cried "God save the Union!". The soldier said Lee regarded him carefully for a moment then came over to him, knelt and said "God bless you, I hope you recover well". Lee hated ever having to fight the civil war, in fact he hated war full stop, Morally he deserves some mention.
Napoleon is IMO a little overated, most people's views of his career concentrate on the good period up till 1806 and ignore his woeful latter performances.
Alexander was good, but it's difficult to tell precisely what to believe about what he did and didn't do given the time period. His achievements were immense, but not greater than say Frederick the Greats.
My choice of finest commander is Wellington. Not as well known as Napoleon, but he remained unbeaten in battle throughout a 20 year career against a wide variety of enemies. He overcame political problems such as initially faulty allies and insane subordinates and showed an ability to fight both defensive and offensive engagements. He took the British army from a laughing stock to the stage where it was the only army in Europe with a continual string of victories against the French, then considered the finest in Europe. He was also one of the few allied generals of the period capable of winning against a French army that outnumbered him as opposed to the other way round. His strategy was sound in most cases and tailored towards precise yet adaptable campaigns. His battlefield abilities were immense. Also Wellington was no prima donna. He did exactly what his brief was, no posturing, no glory hunting, no playing to the crowd, he simply and quietly did his job and that was it. He mastered the art of fighting a defensive retreat whilst inflicting heavy losses on the French (even Napoleon gave him a compliment on this!), knew when to attack and when not to and of all the periods commanders was probably the one that did the most for his men.
Ghengis Khan I'm not overly familiar with the campaigns of, however I tend away from generals who operated as leaders of nations or people's at the same time due the increased level of choice they had. Wellington and Malborough for example had to virtually beg Parliment for more troops, Napoleon could just choose to divert some (for example). Alexander is a possible exception to this as mostly, his Persian campaign was conducted without reinforcement or major support from home.
Rommel intruiges me, his desert campaign showed flashes of brilliance throughout it and again, he took great care to ensure the war there was a "clean" one with no massacres unlike Russia. Then again at times his strategy lacked badly, El-Alemein was suicide for the Germans to even contemplate, though admitedly he was not present for most of it, the fact that he planned it shows he was considerably stubborn and prone to carrying through something to the end beyond hope of sucess. Also it's an arguable point, but his strategy over the Normandy landings probably wouldn't have had any more affect than Rundstedts did.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted June 08, 2004 01:16 AM |
|
|
Robert E. Lee & Genghis Khan Thoughts
Private Hudson wrote:Quote:
Lee was a strategic genius, not so brilliant at directing engagements and so on, but still my choice for best US general.
I think there was a quote that read something like "If you ever wanted to learn about military strategy, then you should not study [the United States Civil War]." All kidding aside, I have to agree with you here PH, about Lee. That dude lead the outnumber and outgunned Confederate Army as far north as Gettysburg (Pennsylvania), which IMHO, is an unbelievable feat in-and-of itself, even if he suffered defeat there. Not only did he evade the Union Army numerous times in their relentless pursuit, but he ended up in their own backyard and took the fight to them...something that embarrassed the Union Army and crushed their morale.
Quote:
Ghengis Khan I'm not overly familiar with the campaigns of, however I tend away from generals who operated as leaders of nations or people's at the same time due the increased level of choice they had.
I read that before laying siege to an enemies stronghold, Genghis Khan would order his men to set-up camp outside the city walls, encircling the city or town. The night before the siege occured, he would instruct his men to light four small 'campfires' each, so when the enemy would look out over their walls, it would appear as if Khan's army was four times as large as it actually was. Pretty intimidating, especially since the defenders inside were well aware of what Khan's men would do to them once they breached the city or town's defenses.
Also, I have read that Khan would 'catapult' dead and diseased bodies (people and animals) into cities or towns that barricaded themselves inside. Not only would this lower morale and cause chaos & confusion, but it would also cause the spread of disease within the city. So not only would he starve them out, but he would increase the chances of dying within the confines of their own defenses. Pretty smart.
You guys are making me want to break out the military history books now...on second thought, I think I will just email PH. 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 09:28 AM |
|
|
Well in the context of greatest generals one shouldnt forget Manstein.
Some would say his his biggest achievement was the way France was defeated in 1940. That was Mansteins plan, so strategically he was amongst the best.
But imho his defensive campaigns against the russians in the winter 1942/1943 showed his true genius. Both tactically and strategically.
From my memory (Its been awhile since I read anything about ww2) Manstein was a General with big G, not caring much about politics, or the atrocities commited by the Germans in Russia. But one thing he always made sure of, despite orders to the contrary, and that was to treat russians PoWs decently.
After the war he was executed for war-crimes, this was solely the russians doing, mostly because he singlehandedly held the German eastern front from breaking after Stalingrad.
I can understand why the russians insisted on thisexecution, as at that point it wasnt clear wether a new WW would break out between the western allies and Russia at that point. And one thing they wouldnt face again, and that was Von Manstein.
Regarding Napoleon, he was still a genius after 1806, if you are in doubt just look at his Austrian campaign in 1809 
And for that matter all the small battles leading up to Waterloo, amongst them Quattre Bras. Actually Waterloo was on the edge, despite the fact that in Belgium at that time, the Russians, Prussians and English outnumbered the French 3-1.
One more that shouldnt be forgotten is Gajus Julius Caesar. First during his Gaellic campaign and then during the civil war.
Plenty more to take from, and it will be excedingly difficult to rate them as the time-gap between 2 generals become bigger.
Regards
Defreni
PS: A more interesting historic subject might involve great men. Not just generals and U.S presidents .
I for one would love to see a comparison between Solons laws with the Napoleonic code, and for that matter Roosevelts "New deal" doubt that it would be easy to make.
|
|
Frick
Known Hero
and eternal n00b.
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 11:52 AM |
|
|
I don't know much about generals, but I like Hannibal. The move he made (week in the middle and strong on the sides) was truly beautiful. Another fascinating thing was that he marched around Italy for about 20 years or so, and was unbeaten!
Another commander (although he mainly was a pirate) was Henry Morgan. I can't recall any specefic battle right now, but he was an excellent commander at both land and sea. I must look it up...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 01:11 PM |
|
|
Defreni:
Manstein comes out of the war with one of the best reputations alongside Guderein and Von Rundstedt. I would also suggest though that Russian commanders such as Rossakovsky (sp?) and Zukhov deserve some credit though. However one thing that tainted things a little is that the German army generals, and especially any left in command in 1945 almost certainly knew of what an utterly insane regime they fought for and that though at the front prisoners were treated ok, in the rear their treatment was in defiance of any kind of humanity. Morally the German WWII generals fail to live up to the likes of Lee or Wellington. Similarly the Russians, knowing the attitudes of their political superiors to German prisoners also fail morally.
I know the Austrian campaign, Napoleon tried to cross the Danube without bothering to recon the area beyond then got caught with his pants down on the other side and beaten heavily. He then resorted to battering ram tactics at Wagram when he ran out of ideas as to how to defeat Charles. Seriously, there’s a turn in events after 1806 where the former brilliance becomes a rarity rather than the norm. As for the campaign of Waterloo, Napoleon completely failed to live up to his reputation during it. The initial plan was sound and likely to succeed, but his performances at Ligny and Waterloo, along with the strategy followed between were appalling and directly lead to his defeat. It’s true that in 1814 and the plans for 1815 he did perform well, but unfortunately as I said, the norm for his campaigns had become considerably poor.
PS, there were no Russians in Belgium in 1815, also the combined armies in the area probably only outnumbered the French by around about 2:1. IIRC the Anglo-Dutch-Belgian-Others army had roughly 120,000 and the Prussians about 140,000 to the French army’s 130,000. Waterloo was a close run thing more because of allied action than anything Napoleon did, if anything, had the allies been a little more aware of the situation he would have been much more easily destroyed. The Russian army was busy marching towards France and wasn't due there for some time.
Khayman
Well I disagree with the statement you quote also. Lee’s ability to literally run rings round Union commanders in 1862 and 1863 show the brilliance of his command. Anyone who knows much about the war can be certain that had Lee accepted command of the Union army as offered to him before the war broke out, the war would have ended swiftly and without anything like the bloodshed and problems.
As for Hannibal, though some credit has to go to him for Cannae, Lake Trasimene and so on, strategically he was poor. Though he may have been an excellent battlefield commander, he knew nothing of how to defeat the Romans overall. Every one of his victories were wasted by lacking the ability or time to exploit them.
|
|
Shai-Hulud
Known Hero
Sicomor
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 01:57 PM |
|
|
I believe the best, not general, but strateg was after all Sun Tzu. Even if he wasn't quite a general he knewed all the philosphy of war... Japanase warriors folowed this code even if the man who wrote it was a chinese man( we all know that there was a strong conflict between China and Japan and they hatred each other). If we think that the aplicalibilty of his code even today and some Miltary Acadamies hold courses related to this.
Oh! And by the way...Alexander was a good general indeed, but he wasn't so revolutionary...He continued his father's plan and he used the same tactics: the Phalanx. The only thing that made him so famous was the fact that he cut that gordian node...
About Napoleon!? He was good in his first years as a general until the Egypt campaign when his declining time started ...And the times when he was Emperor were disastrous...Only think that he mad quite a few big mistakes...And the last one, that was fatal with Russia. He shouldn't have trusted the russians, after they fought such a long and exausting war...!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 02:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh! And by the way...Alexander was a good general indeed, but he wasn't so revolutionary...He continued his father's plan and he used the same tactics: the Phalanx. The only thing that made him so famous was the fact that he cut that gordian node...
What? The Gordian node isn't what made Alexander famous. It probably never happened in fact. What made him famous was that he forged an empire that encompassed roughly the entire civilized world at the time (at least those areas that mettered something) and his vision of a united world with everybody's peronal religious and cultural freedom respected. He lived too short to see that come true however.
And also, that was never his father's (Philip II) plan. Philip's appetites only streched to conquering the mainland of Greece and the city-states colonies. Also, the tactics that made Alexandar succeed wasn't the use of the Phalanx (which was something that the Greek city-states have used before), but the effective combining of both infantry, cavalry and archers. But it's true that the Phalanx was the core of Alexander's army.
I second Defreni's proposal about a thread dealing with the most imortant men is history, since currenty we don't know if we talk about strategy generals, battlefield commanders or country leaders. And I'm not familiar with the issues of war and military tactics. In fact, from the discussion, it looks like all of you have some military connected jobs, especially PH.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shai-Hulud
Known Hero
Sicomor
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 02:54 PM |
|
|
You are mostly right Svarog, but if we think that his empire has collapsed immeadtely after his death and that in his years trough the desert his generals were thinking deserting him we could say that he lsot much! You're right he was a truly visionair, but visions and dreams don;t make a person's personality. Indeed, he founded famous cities, built libraries, wanted a united nation...but it was to much for him. Oh! And by the way, his father conquered Greece, but he wanted the persians dissapear and the only way trough which he could make them go is by conquering, but he was to afraid and to old( he lost quite a few time trying to conquer Greece, even if the greeks had so many wars between them they were still strong and there was Sparta to, which he couldn't conwuer). So Alexander did what his father dreamt, but couldn't do.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 02:56 PM |
|
|
I work as an Administration officer (office work basically) for a small charity Savrog, I have never worked in anything related to the military, nor do I have any intention of doing so either. My interest is purely a hobby.
Further to what Savrog mentioned about Alexander, he also did not use the same type of Phalanx as Phillip, he developed it a little, making it deeper IIRC, so even in terms of basic tactics in the core of the army things had changed a little. I would though contest that it controlled what mattered of the civilised world though as the likes of China and the civilisations of the western Med lay beyond his reach. There is also some evidence that he planned to invade the Arabian penninsula at the time. IMO Alexander would not have settled down for some time, possibly engaging the Arabians followed by a campaign against the Carthaginians and/or fledgling Romans. Much of this was aimed at taking control of resources rather than civilisations of course. So I think that he would not have settled down until well into "old age" to create that super-state from his empire.
Shai-Hulud:
I cannot agree with your comments entirely. Whilst Napoleon's campaign in Egypt was marred by failiure to secure a long term victory and Napoleon abbandonning the army there to it's fate (as he would later do in Russia also) he did show continued competence after his return. The Marengo campaign was well thought, even if the battle was won more by luck, however the Austerlitz campaign was brilliant, the work of the old genius at play. Coming as this did in 1805, it's innacurate to say that Egypt was his highest point. Sun Tzu on the other hand is good theory, but as you mentioned, never tried in practice to any great degree (I believe he did serve in one or two campaigns). Much of what he wrote though is useful, though some is obvious.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 03:03 PM |
|
|
|
..I personally thing Privatehudson is the greatest general ever ^_^
|
|
Shai-Hulud
Known Hero
Sicomor
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 03:08 PM |
|
|
I must admit, PH, that with the Austelitz campaign you are right( stupid me how could i had forget something this important)! Still that was a one last shine from the dying star. But all his succeses on land were affected by all the battles he( not really him, because his generals were commanding the force, but he was the general over all the troops) lost on sea.
Ohh.And related to that thing with Sun Tzu. He was hired by the emperor to make a company of women worriors. And he succeded quite fast. But he hadn't the oppurtunity to shine in a real battle...
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 06:48 PM |
|
|
Well actually Im just a minor in history, and it has been several years since I last read up on my military history.
Which I must admit PH clearly showed in his response to my view of Napoleon.
I stand corrected
But I saw that you wrote 1806, which means the Prussian campaign with the battle of Jena as its summit is included. Very good point PH.
Funny you also mentioned Guderian and Von Rundstedt, which imho is still below Von Manstein in pure military genius. Regarding the russians during WW2 I agree that Zhukov is also one of the best. His wintercampaign in 1941-42 was brilliant.
Well the topic is generals, but if we admitted admirals into the equation aswell. Lord Nelson and Sir Francis Drake will beat Wellington anyday, at least in my book.
And when we are at sea one mustnt forget Nimitz and Yamamoto aswell. One of the best moves the U.S did during WW2 was the "assasination" of Yamamoto in 1943.
But I must admit I find it extremely difficult to rate military genius, especially considering that a man like Napoleon actually ran allmost all of mainland Europe aswell as commanding his armies. This is probably one of the reasons he made alot more mistakes in his campaigns after 1806 than prior.
Regards
Defreni
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 09:33 PM |
|
|
My Favorites:
American: D. MacArthur, D. Eisenhower, U. Grant, G. Washington, R. Lee, E. Allen(not an official general, but he was good), F. Marion, and G. Patton
European: Alexander, Napoleon, Joan of Arc, Henry V(the Shakespearean incantation), Pompei, and Caesar
Asian: Solon, Hideki Tojo, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane
African: Shaka
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But I saw that you wrote 1806, which means the Prussian campaign with the battle of Jena as its summit is included. Very good point PH.
I think his campaign strategy was good there yes, though he tried (typically I might add, Napoleon was good at propaganda and inflating his own importance when it suited him) to claim the credit for the victory against the facts. Davout, one of his finest marshals ran into 55,000 Prussians with barely 27,000 of his own men. Not only did he drive back repeated assaults he eventually went on the offensive and drove them from the field in disarray! This battle, Auerstadt is much less known, but considering it had more troops there than Napoleon faced it's obvious whom did more to inflict the defeat in battle anyway. Napoleon faced 48,000 Prussians with over 90,000 French, Davout's battle figures are above.
Unfortunately, IMO Napoleon gets all the credit for the French army in the period when at least two of his Marshals (Lannes and Davout) were as good if not better than him. Also many people will cite Napoleon but not say Wellington, Malborough or Kutuzov due to his fame more than his ability.
Quote:
Well the topic is generals, but if we admitted admirals into the equation aswell. Lord Nelson and Sir Francis Drake will beat Wellington anyday, at least in my book.
Nelson yes, Drake no. Drake was a pirate and it showed, during the engagment with the Armarda of 1588 he sailed off to engage a treasure ship rather than engage the spanish fleet! Nelson was a genius of naval tatics and had he lived it's highly unlikely we would have had problems with the Americans in the 1812 war that we did.
Quote:
E. Allen(not an official general, but he was good), F. Marion
Hmmm, I'm not familiar with either of these, information on them would be handy to expand my knowledge
However I do not really rate MacArthur due to in part to his ignorance of his men's welfare most of the time, his prima-donna attitudes in both WWII and Korea, his yo-yo personality and the fact that he often inflicted high losses on his men without knowing that his orders caused them. The Kokoda trail fighting is the perfect example of this. Patton does get a lot of credit for his speedy breakout of Normandy and race to Germany, however that kind of ignores the fact that the hard fighting to make that possible had been already done by troops that were already there and Patton's 3rd faced barely 1/2 of the tanks that Montgomery's forces faced for example. His performance in the Bulge was good though. Grant's ability lay mainly in his force of personality and sound strategy. Unlike many before him, he both knew the way to defeat the south, AND had the courage to do it no matter the cost.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 10:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I saw that you wrote 1806, which means the Prussian campaign with the battle of Jena as its summit is included. Very good point PH.
I think his campaign strategy was good there yes, though he tried (typically I might add, Napoleon was good at propaganda and inflating his own importance when it suited him) to claim the credit for the victory against the facts. Davout, one of his finest marshals ran into 55,000 Prussians with barely 27,000 of his own men. Not only did he drive back repeated assaults he eventually went on the offensive and drove them from the field in disarray! This battle, Auerstadt is much less known, but considering it had more troops there than Napoleon faced it's obvious whom did more to inflict the defeat in battle anyway. Napoleon faced 48,000 Prussians with over 90,000 French, Davout's battle figures are above.
Unfortunately, IMO Napoleon gets all the credit for the French army in the period when at least two of his Marshals (Lannes and Davout) were as good if not better than him. Also many people will cite Napoleon but not say Wellington, Malborough or Kutuzov due to his fame more than his ability.
Quote:
Well the topic is generals, but if we admitted admirals into the equation aswell. Lord Nelson and Sir Francis Drake will beat Wellington anyday, at least in my book.
Nelson yes, Drake no. Drake was a pirate and it showed, during the engagment with the Armarda of 1588 he sailed off to engage a treasure ship rather than engage the spanish fleet! Nelson was a genius of naval tatics and had he lived it's highly unlikely we would have had problems with the Americans in the 1812 war that we did.
Quote:
E. Allen(not an official general, but he was good), F. Marion
Hmmm, I'm not familiar with either of these, information on them would be handy to expand my knowledge
However I do not really rate MacArthur due to in part to his ignorance of his men's welfare most of the time, his prima-donna attitudes in both WWII and Korea, his yo-yo personality and the fact that he often inflicted high losses on his men without knowing that his orders caused them. The Kokoda trail fighting is the perfect example of this. Patton does get a lot of credit for his speedy breakout of Normandy and race to Germany, however that kind of ignores the fact that the hard fighting to make that possible had been already done by troops that were already there and Patton's 3rd faced barely 1/2 of the tanks that Montgomery's forces faced for example. His performance in the Bulge was good though. Grant's ability lay mainly in his force of personality and sound strategy. Unlike many before him, he both knew the way to defeat the south, AND had the courage to do it no matter the cost.
Ethan Allen and Francis Marion were both guerilla leaders who fought in the American Revolution: Ethan Allen in the North, Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion was in the south. Neither fought Cornwalis(sp?) directly, so their credit leaves a lot to be desired, but they gave the British hell.
I disagree with your opinion of MacArthur mostly because I live in Virginia Beach, home of the Douglas MacArthur Memorial Museum, so I've been exposed to many of his great exploits. Where you said, he had little care for his men is actually quite false. He was called a fool for recommending Truman to attack China, but he later revealed his logic was that nuclear bombs=less lost American, more specifically, his men, soldiers.
I like Patton because he just reeks of personality
Grant is quite the heart warming story. He graduated near the bottom of his class at Westpoint, he was viewed as a lost cause due to his habit of drinking and gluttony. Still, he climbed up the ranks and achieved the status of general.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 10:53 PM |
|
|
To be fair he specifically reccomended dropping nuclear bombs on China and saturating North Korea with nuclear waste. Ironic considering he was blatantly against the nuking of Japan during WWII. Presumably being a communist regime justified dropping nukes The guy was less concerned with troops and more with panicking because he'd refused to pay the blindest bit of attention to Chinese warnings about his actions and promptly found his forces swamped by the Chinese army. He was also far too unhinged for sole command and korea showed this to the full. He and the UN forces had neither the moral right, nor reason to attack China and even less to start nuking them, had he not approached their borders in the first place neither lost men nor nuclear weapons were needed. I don't count that as a bonus point in his favour
Also if you look at the battles on the Kokoda trail he had no intention of understanding what the Australians went through there and demanded they be reprimanded for not following his orders to attack... which was kind of Ironic considering they were outnumbered 4:1 by an enemy with howitzers when they had nothing bigger than a bren gun (A light machine gun)...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 11:29 PM |
|
|
Kosciuszko anyone?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
| |
|
|
