Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No personal offense intended, but this is the reason Wiki will always be suspect. I have read many things on it(when I use to read it) that are either inaccurate or flat out distortions. You also have people who intentionally inject their own biases, whether it be political or their personal taste.
As a result it is unreliable as an accurate reference source.
I am sure there are some people who try to be as neutral as possible, maybe people such as yourself. However human nature will dictate that many cannot dispassionately give a fair and balanced account of events, nor separate themselves from their emotions to write in a professional manner.
That makes it no worse than anything else other than a peer-reviewed technical/scientific journal.
That certainly can have an effect on the polling numbers. However with the sheer volume of commanders/captains you listed, many will get slighted. Mine was the first vote for Captain Nemo, and I think he would have received a few more if not for being at the bottom(product placement).
Also, once you cast one vote, it eliminates the ability to vote for anyone else. So even though I have gone on & on about how Kirk is better than Picard, I couldn't even vote for him since I already voted for Nemo.
Another poster pointed out that many people voting will not even know some of these captains, nor watched the shows/movie they were in. Heck 20K Under The Sea with James Mason & Kirk Douglas was made in the mid 50's, and to some on this forum, that is like watching a silent movie. The only reason I saw it for the first time was that it was a Disney Film that I watched on TV.
When you set up a poll on here, you have the option to allow more than one vote or not. On previous Boards I have allowed multiple votes per voter and it has resulted in a disaster. Fortunately I limited those polls to 30 days. This poll will never expire, so eventually everyone on there should get at least one vote.
I like O'Neill (tight race in my mind between Reynolds and O'Neill as the commanders I'd prefer to follow into stupid situations), but Hammond made a pretty good general as well.
Then perhaps Hammond should have been on the list. He was the commander, after all. The REAL commander.
Loved SG1 and All the derivatives. but Jack O'Neil was middle management, and as such had limited responsibility.
Was James Gavin a good general? Sure! How about Monty? Yep! Patton? You betcha! But who made all the hard decisions?
Then perhaps Hammond should have been on the list. He was the commander, after all. The REAL commander.
Loved SG1 and All the derivatives. but Jack O'Neil was middle management, and as such had limited responsibility.
Was James Gavin a good general? Sure! How about Monty? Yep! Patton? You betcha! But who made all the hard decisions?
Umm, no. When I was in the military, I was a senior NCO; I was middle management. A rear echelon staff officer is middle management. A designated battlefield commander on his mission is the top authority for the troops under his command. The general back at HQ is not making the decisions that will actually win the battle, nor is he the voice the soldiers are listening for above the clash of swords and the roar of cannon.
O'Neill was a designated battlefield commander, as were Gavin, Montgomery, and Patton. In the field, they were not middle management, they were the top for their troops.
There is very much a difference between a "manager" and a "leader," and a commander must be a leader (even if a lousy manager--that's what senior NCOs are for).
Ever see the movie "Glory?" By the end of the movie, you saw a commander, not "middle management."
Another interesting movie in that respect was "U-571" in the short angry speech Harvey Keitel (as the experienced Chief of the Boat) gave Matthew McConaughey (a staff officer thrust into a commander's role):
Umm, no. When I was in the military, I was a senior NCO; I was middle management. A rear echelon staff officer is middle management. A designated battlefield commander on his mission is the top authority for the troops under his command. The general back at HQ is not making the decisions that will actually win the battle, nor is he the voice the soldiers are listening for above the clash of swords and the roar of cannon.
O'Neill was a designated battlefield commander, as were Gavin, Montgomery, and Patton. In the field, they were not middle management, they were the top for their troops.
There is very much a difference between a "manager" and a "leader," and a commander must be a leader (even if a lousy manager--that's what senior NCOs are for).
Ever see the movie "Glory?" By the end of the movie, you saw a commander, not "middle management."
Another interesting movie in that respect was "U-571" in the short angry speech Harvey Keitel (as the experienced Chief of the Boat) gave Matthew McConaughey (a staff officer thrust into a commander's role):
Hammond was a good general in terms of clearing away the bureaucratic red tape that would prevent his battlefield commanders from being commanders.
I believe I addressed much of this distinction in my own post # 7, where I distinguish between civilian leadership and military leadership / command. IIRC I alos broach the topic of those of in the wilds with little if any support and contact with chain of command and those who operate otherwise.
Your points are well taken. But just let me throw this into the mix.
When I was a kid there were still a lot of WW2 movies and TV shows around. Most of these revolved around commanders of the rank of lieutenant and below - troop level at best (ok so that's a captain), more likely squadrons and platoons. Yeah, those troops at that level must execute so that the battle may be won. So Sergeant Joe and his boys hold that position or take that position. So how does that compare to Lieutenant Bill, who mut evaluate his subordinates and place them into roles where they are best able to succeed?
In other words, we can go as granular as we wish in this kind of general discussion.
But for goodness sake, how does one fairly compare starship captains of the Star Trek world with guys who lead squadrons of four or crews of 6? Particularly when the galaxy as a whole is at risk for the former and not at risk for the latter?
PS I made my vote based upon the Start Trek model, which I suppose is the main point of the OP.
PS I made my vote based upon the Start Trek model, which I suppose is the main point of the OP.
I don't see "Star Trek model" espoused by the OP:
Quote:
Who do you think is the best commander ever in Sci-Fi History? And when I say "BEST" I mean if you had to pick someone to protect us from a powerful invading alien race....
If we want to make "protect us from a powerful invading alien race," we can start with those who actually did it successfully.
That puts O'Neill back into the top four or five, having defended the earth successfully from at least two powerful alien races (not just beat them back, but actually eliminated them).
Who else did that? John Sheridan, Dylan Hunt...maybe I've missed a couple, but not many commanded a force that actually sent invaders packing never to return.
........Who else did that? John Sheridan, Dylan Hunt...maybe I've missed a couple, but not many commanded a force that actually sent invaders packing never to return.
Nelson and Bridger (I think on the latter). Now, they may not have knocked them back with blows, but they did send them away.
How much does the voting represent the popularity of the shows? Do so many people really think it's only a race between Kirk and Picard and that characters like Bill Adama and John Sheridan stand that short next to them?
Personally, I've watched all there is to see of all of them, and I'd still hang with Mal Reynolds or Jack O'Neill (who somehow managed to get the persona of a fighter pilot right and still be a good unit commander, which was rare in my experience, but I did know a couple like him).
Kirk was an excellent commander *for his time*. Space beyond known areas was the wild west. They all still remembered the wars on Earth which nearly wiped it out. They were not into a 'settled Empire'. Picard was the commander you want when that is what you have. He understood diplomacy. He was willing to take the careful road when it was the best option, and the risky one when it wasn't. When he 'rescued' the planet from their genetically enhansed army which came after them when they were put out to pasture, he didn't choose to fix the situation, just let them do the right thing. If they did the wrong one, and tried again they would be back and Picard would be gone.
He was a man of his time, and for his time a very effective commander. Now, then you have Sisko, who harks after Kirk. When the war starts, he is your man. When he has to be go between with factions at home, he's your man, not talking nice compromise but suggesting unwanted outcomes. When Starfleet looks at his potential for upper command and admiralty Sisko is never going to make it since he breaks the rules too often.
But the commander who shines in the hardest place is Bill Adama. There are huge and tragic decisions to make, like leaving behind the ships without warp to save the rest. He can make them and still live with himself. Kirk might do okay, Sisko would, but Picard would have to be the captain who fights the Dominion in their war to survive instead of the one who sails the peaceful (mostly) Federation.
By the end of the Dominion war, Picard would understand Adama a whole lot better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
