Who is the best commander..Thrawn or Kirk

[Peregrin Toker]

Kirk has been an admiral, but he has never been a Grand Admiral....

[Crown]

Stravo glad you didn't get offended, it was sort of tongue-in-cheek.

IG-88E pardon me for saying this, but your analogy is a little flawed, mainly for the same over-sight as Stravo. Look if Thrawn sat at Imperial High Command and all he did was issue orders from the safety of a planetary shield, I would agree. But what we are overlooking is that Thrawn was a front of the lines kinda Admiral. In the Trilogy we see him leading anything from one ship to three to a whole fleet.

[kheegster]

Kirk is the better leader, but Thrawn is the better commander. I think that is the best summation.

[Lord Pounder]

Once Thrawn accesses the archives and gets an idea of what art Kirk would like then Kirk is fucked.

[Stravo]

Once Thrawn accesses the archives and gets an idea of what art Kirk would like then Kirk is fucked.

I do believe that the art ability is limited to species not a prticular person. By examining a species' art, Thrawn can get an insight on their psychologocal makeup.

Which leads to the question, considering the wide variety of art just in certain regions of our world, it's kind of simplistic of Zahn to have just one or two pieces of artwork representative of an entire species' artistic bent.

[Master of Ossus]

Once Thrawn accesses the archives and gets an idea of what art Kirk would like then Kirk is fucked.

I do believe that the art ability is limited to species not a prticular person. By examining a species' art, Thrawn can get an insight on their psychologocal makeup.

Which leads to the question, considering the wide variety of art just in certain regions of our world, it's kind of simplistic of Zahn to have just one or two pieces of artwork representative of an entire species' artistic bent.

Thrawn also got information on specific individuals from examining their artwork. He had seen Talon Karde's artwork collection, and was confident that he understood the man.

I don't see it as being unrealistic that Thrawn was able to judge a species from a few pieces of artwork (at least, no more than his ability to measure an individual). To him, it is likely that all forms of human artwork would look very similar--to the point where, say, Art Neuvo is approximately the same as, say, Greco-Roman sculpting or cubist. He would tell that the artists disagreed in philosophy, or that one form of art had evolved from another, but the same psychological limitations of the artists would be present in all three different forms of work.

[Darth Wong]

REMEMBER ST2!!!

Kirk is the guy who disregarded regulations and refused to raise shields when approached by a vessel which refused to identify itself or respond to hails, remember? His tactical abilities are not just slightly overrated; they're shit. He doesn't even think of using the third dimension to maneuver until Spock brings it up.

Most of his successes in TOS involved bluffing people or simply having a superior warship (look at Elaan of Troyius; takes multiple hits from a Klingon warship without damage but virtually disables it with a single return strike once it gets its engines underway). He was repeatedly captured because he stupidly went down to hostile situations himself, and against the planet which emulated gangland Chicago, he REPEATEDLY made the SAME mistake!

I'm sorry, but Kirk is not just a sub-genius tactician; he is a MORONIC tactician. And while he is a competent leader of men, I don't see any sign of him ever inspiring anything resembling the sort of fanatical loyalty that Thrawn inspired in his men.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, Kirk is also the guy who gave Kahn full access to the entire design schematics of the Enterprise despite zero security clearance, and who lets foreign dignitaries wander around the ship so they can sabotage it (see Elaan of Troyius), thus setting the precedent for the continuation of this ridiculous "open-door policy" in TNG.

I like Kirk as a character, but as a soldier he's an idiot. He only looks good in comparison to guys like Picard.

[Kuja]

IG-88E pardon me for saying this, but your analogy is a little flawed, mainly for the same over-sight as Stravo. Look if Thrawn sat at Imperial High Command and all he did was issue orders from the safety of a planetary shield, I would agree. But what we are overlooking is that Thrawn was a front of the lines kinda Admiral. In the Trilogy we see him leading anything from one ship to three to a whole fleet.

I'm confused. What, exactly, are you saying? That Thrawn is both a good commander and Admiral?

[Crown]

IG-88E pardon me for saying this, but your analogy is a little flawed, mainly for the same over-sight as Stravo. Look if Thrawn sat at Imperial High Command and all he did was issue orders from the safety of a planetary shield, I would agree. But what we are overlooking is that Thrawn was a front of the lines kinda Admiral. In the Trilogy we see him leading anything from one ship to three to a whole fleet.

I'm confused. What, exactly, are you saying? That Thrawn is both a good commander and Admiral?

Well my comment was in response to the following;

Kirk motivates his men by being RIGHT THERE, willing to take a hit and die alongside them.
Thrawn motivates his men by whipping them into a righteous fury and ensuring from afar they will survive

POINT TO KIRK

And yes, Thrawn is just as an excellent commander as he is an Admiral, how could it be otherwise?

[Crown]

Ammendum:

I would also say that I disagree with the whole 'whip them up into a righteous fury' statement. We see in TLC, he specifically pulls up a Captain who was taking the battle a little too personally due to the loss of the SD at the Katana battle at the end of DFR. Thrawn saught two thigns in his subordanents; Competance and Loyalty (ref; Tales from the Empire).

[Shadow Walker]

This is a hard one. I think it depends on what the mission is. If you want a planet taken, go with Thrawn. If you want a ship to do the "impossible" go with Kirk.

[DocMoriartty]

Kirk would win because the Thrawn character is based on such a flawed concept that he must be lying his ass off all the time about what his thinking method is.

Look at our planet. Now look at the tens of thousands of different types of art out there. Now tell me what someone is going to learn from them? I mean come on first you would have to decide which art to study.

Fortunately for Thrawn Timothy Zahn took a huge bite out of the ST brainbug pie and made all alien cultures so simplistic that each alien culture can be easily studied through one type of art from that culture.

Now since we can all logically agree that cultures advanced enough for space travel could not be that simplistic one has to wonder about what Thrawn was really using.

My theory? He used simple intelligence assets that he cloaked with his "art" appraisals so that no one would try to discover his intel source.

So how well did Thrawn do when he didnt know exactly who his foe was?

[TrekWarsie]

It depends really. Thrawn is probably a better fleet commander, but I think that Kirk is the better individual ship commander.

[Lord Pounder]

Argue with the evidance Moriartty. Thrawn never lost a battle he was involved in untill he was betrayed by the Nogri.

You can scream brain bug all you want but the results are cannon your opinion isn't.

[Darth Yoshi]

Argue with the evidance Moriartty. Thrawn never lost a battle he was involved in untill he was betrayed by the Nogri.

You can scream brain bug all you want but the results are cannon your opinion isn't.

Not to nitpick, but Thrawn lost at Sluis Van. Although I suppose it was a Phyrric victory for the NR.

Doc, how do you know that Thrawn only looked at one particular type of art for each species?

[DocMoriartty]

Well every time the books had a description of Thrawn's art room I remember pretty well that the art was always the same type. When he looked at the Mon Cal art you the description was of several pieces of the same type of art. Every instance fell along those lines.

Brain bug or not I am right. Thrawn only won when he had excellant intel of the situation. The time he lost (when he was also killed) was the one battle where he did not have perfect intel. Thrawn had no idea the smugglers were there or that they had the firepower to take out one of his defense platforms and openb the shipyard to direct attack. So I believe that your example supports my claim. Thrawn was only as good as the intel he possessed.

Argue with the evidance Moriartty. Thrawn never lost a battle he was involved in untill he was betrayed by the Nogri.

You can scream brain bug all you want but the results are cannon your opinion isn't.

Not to nitpick, but Thrawn lost at Sluis Van. Although I suppose it was a Phyrric victory for the NR.

Doc, how do you know that Thrawn only looked at one particular type of art for each species?

[DocMoriartty]

Another good example. Thrawn didnt have the intel to tell him Lando was there or that he would have command codes for the mole diggers. The result was his attack was foiled when he should have won.


[quote="Darth Yoshi"]
Not to nitpick, but Thrawn lost at Sluis Van. Although I suppose it was a Phyrric victory for the NR.[\quote]

[Boba Fett]

Well every time the books had a description of Thrawn's art room I remember pretty well that the art was always the same type. When he looked at the Mon Cal art you the description was of several pieces of the same type of art. Every instance fell along those lines.

Brain bug or not I am right. Thrawn only won when he had excellant intel of the situation. The time he lost (when he was also killed) was the one battle where he did not have perfect intel. Thrawn had no idea the smugglers were there or that they had the firepower to take out one of his defense platforms and openb the shipyard to direct attack. So I believe that your example supports my claim. Thrawn was only as good as the intel he possessed.

Not true...

Read carefully the first pages of the whole trilogy when Thrawn defeats the cruisers lead by an Elomian or whatever. That may give you some idea on how to judge your opponent by his arts.

The loss of the Golan platform didn't decide the result of the battle at Bilbringi.
The death of Thrawn and Pellaeon's lack of faith in his tactical capabilities decided the fate of the battle.

BTW intel is badly needed for every tactician. Shame on Kirk he rarely used it.

[Darth Wong]

I can't believe people are trying to nitpick Thrawn after I listed numerous examples of Kirk's outright incompetence. Sorry, but Thrawn wins hands-down.

[Boba Fett]

Another good example. Thrawn didnt have the intel to tell him Lando was there or that he would have command codes for the mole diggers. The result was his attack was foiled when he should have won.

Not to nitpick, but Thrawn lost at Sluis Van. Although I suppose it was a Phyrric victory for the NR.[\quote]

I'd rather say that Thrawn failed to accomplish his primary goal.
On the other hand he managed to force the rebels to cripple their own (approx. 40) capital ships for months...

...and he only lost couple of TIEs and troopers.

Not what I call a defeat!!!

Thrawn's ability to quickly accomodate to new circumstances made him a really good tactician.

[Lord Pounder]

Thats the main difference between Kirk and Thrawn. Kirk has to make everthing personal while Thrawn is a professional. For this reason alone Thrawn would win hands down.

[DocMoriartty]

Your right. Due to uber writing Thrawn would probably win. I am just suggesting that he is not as good as he says he is and his "techniques" are at least in my opinion complete crap on a stick.

You go stare at the Mona Lisa, Campbell Soup Cans, David, and Mount Rushmore for a few years and then tell me what you have learned that would help you win a battle against human military forces.

I can't believe people are trying to nitpick Thrawn after I listed numerous examples of Kirk's outright incompetence. Sorry, but Thrawn wins hands-down.

[DocMoriartty]

It was also his first big step in his master plan and he bungled it. That had to be rather depressing to the troops though you never see that since it is at the very end of the first Thrawn book.

Another good example. Thrawn didnt have the intel to tell him Lando was there or that he would have command codes for the mole diggers. The result was his attack was foiled when he should have won.

Not to nitpick, but Thrawn lost at Sluis Van. Although I suppose it was a Phyrric victory for the NR.[\quote]

I'd rather say that Thrawn failed to accomplish his primary goal.
On the other hand he managed to force the rebels to cripple their own (approx. 40) capital ships for months...

...and he only lost couple of TIEs and troopers.

Not what I call a defeat!!!

Thrawn's ability to quickly accomodate to new circumstances made him a really good tactician.

[Ghost Rider]

So Zahn used some fancy speak to make Thrawn better....your point?

I mean Lucas pulls Character shield out of the air to make Greedo blinder than a bat in headlights.

Thrawn wins because seriously he didn't screw up as bad as Kirk in numerous cases...Kirk usually pulled victory at times because hell the villains make some pretty damn irrational choices...usually something to do with pride and wanting to kill Kirk regardless.

And your examples have nothing to with personal people...basically you're saying his looking at art is pointless when that was just a facet and not even the total worth of what he did...I mean I might as well say Kirk main power in TOS was he ability to seduce women.

So you want any more pointless nit-picking