What general do you admire most?

[whiskeyjack]

Hey,
Everyone is this forum is a general of some sort whether good or bad and i was wondering who your favourite general of all time is. Is it Alexander the Great, Napolean, Wellington etc? Who would you have wanted to be?

[DemonArchangel]

Hitler













(j/k about hitler) Seriously, i'd have to say either alexanader the great or napoleon.

[AggonyShim2]

Rommel... Erwin Johannes Eugene Rommel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Lord Godfrey]

Who are my favorite generals?

William the Conqueror – Bastard son who fought to gain respect and led the last successful invasion of the British Isles

Gustavus Adolphus – One of the last great King / General combinations who died in battle after he had won a crucial engagement

George Washington – Lost most of the battles he fought, but with some outside help won the most important ones. Could have declared himself king, but instead quietly retired. Elected President, and again quietly retired after serving two terms

Robert E. Lee – Won most of his battles even though he was outnumbered by using superior tactics and the art of maneuver. Highly respected even today although a rebel general on the losing side

[spmetla]

Feldmarschal Erwin Rommel

[rasoforos]

Alexander the Great or Leonidas.

The first because he won every battle he fought , he changed history , he lived fast , he fought among his soldiers and... he is made into movies that present him as gay even when the legent says he was (beep) the Amazon queen for 3 days in a row http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The second because he has a good man , respected by the people who knew him , who died heroically defending his country against an enemy invasion ( the best way to live and die according to the ancient hellenic way of thinking , today its something like 'buy a house by the sea , a house in the mountains , a mercedes , a BMW , a villa , a yaught and make sure you only declare an income of $4000 per year in your tax papers... oh and when you die make sure you evade the inheritance tax as well http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

[econ21]

Wellington. He seems to have been an incredibly assured battlefield general and his pithy comments at the time are always good copy.

[redrooster]

Zhuge Liang or Alexander. Amazonians cut off one breast, does that mean alexander had some wierd fetish to go at it 3 nights in a row. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[terryblack825]

My vote would also have to be for Zhuge Liang.

[Lechev]

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

" The commander's place is here, right at the front. I don't believed in armchair strategy."

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions.

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."

"

[Knight_Yellow]

Robert the bruce

finished williams dreams and gave scotland freedom.

[lonewolf371]

Alexander the Great, won all the battles he fought. Yes I'm afraid that even Wellington himself failed at Burgos.

[spmetla]

Good to see that I'm not the only Rommel fan here.

[A.Saturnus]

Just look at my avatar... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Dîn-Heru]

Genghis Kahn.

Do I need to say why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
Genghis Kahn.


You probably mean Oliver Kahn http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Nowake]

~ Hannibal (look at my signature http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

~ Genghis Khan

~ Turrene

~ Napoleon

~ Guderian&Rommel


Simply, the best of all times ...

[BlackWatch McKenna]

~Frederick the Great

~Rommel

~Hannibal

~Alexander

[lonewolf371]

Of those only one didn't lose a battle: Alexander. However I'm not sure about Barbarossa, I mean, he probably would have lost to Saladin but drowed himself in a river before Saladin could kick his ***. Surely he lost some battle.

[Lord Godfrey]

Alexander won all or most of his battles and is well regarded today as a great general, but he died young and his empire soon collapsed.

[Swordsman]

Doesn't seem fair to compare some of these guys from different eras, where some were "soldier-rulers" and others were pretty much "just" on the military side. Totally different skill set required to establish/rule an empire vice "just" battlefield success. Therefore my hat is off to those who could do both. I vote for Alexander (the Great, not Jason) with Genghis (not Madeline) Khan a close second. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[whiskeyjack]

Hey,
It seems that most people are going for Alexander the Great, Hanibal, Genghis khan or Rommel. Alexander and Genghis Khan had certain advantages in the composition of their + Hanibal commanded armies mostly comprised of mercenaries. I'd personally have more respect for generals who fought on a more level playing pitch i.e Rommel + other WWII generals and Napolean.

[Skomatth]

Quote[/b] ]Hannibal (look at my signature )



It should be Incendium ante portas

Fire isnt latin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

-Skomatth, imposing proper latin wherever he goes.

And to stay on topic: Alexander the Great.

[lonewolf371]

Quote[/b] (whiskeyjack @ April 11 2003,19:44)]I'd personally have more respect for generals who fought on a more level playing pitch
Well, you're right in assuming that Alexander played on an un-even playing pitch, but it was in favor of his enemies in all of his battles save the ones against Greece, his first battle against the Persians, and the siege of Tyre. OK, so his greatest victories included being outnumbered (dramatically)

Issus: 5 Persians to 1 Macedonian

Guagamela: Some say the Persians had 1,000,000 soldiers in this battle, let's keep it to 500,000. This is still 10 to 1.

Hydaspes: 2 to 1

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]Of those only one didn't lose a battle: Alexander. However I'm not sure about Barbarossa, I mean, he probably would have lost to Saladin but drowed himself in a river before Saladin could kick his ***. Surely he lost some battle.


Barbarossa's army was large enough that it was generally accepted that it would single handedly beat Saladin. Barabarossa was a big enough threat in the eyes of Saladin that he was asking the western arab powers to be like the Christians and send forces to fight for the Holy land.

Too bad he drowned, all that armor combined with his old age made jumping into a river a reaaallly bad idea.

[lonewolf371]

It was generally accepted that Darius III's army of 500,000 to 1 million would beat Alexander's considering he outnumbered Alexander by about 10 times, but that didn't happen.

[Rath]

Napoleon, Hannibal and Alexander - but the first 2 are my favourites.

[Parmenion]

Nobody mentioned Julius Caesar. He was a great general, a supreme politician and an incredibly intelligent and ambitious man. He is also reported to be a bit of a hard case. He fought pesonally in lots of his battles and both his allies and enemies were amazed with his skill and speed.

Side Note :
I once read a history paper (don't know how true this is) that mentioned his death. He apparently lay about him with his wax tablet and stylus, injuring many of his attackers, and could well have escaped to safety had he not seen one of his attackers was Brutus. The sight of his adopted son caused him to give up and accept his fate. I'm a big believer that Caesar went to the forum that day with the full knowledge of what would happen, so I don't really believe this story.

Also, Scipio Africanus should be ranked better than Hannibal. Everyone remembers Hannibal for his daring march across the Alps with his elephants etc... but no-one remembers the man who finally defeated him. Scipio took the standard Roman tactics and adopted them in the manner of his foe. He armed them with Gladii in imitation of Hannibal's Spaniards, and gave them a greater flexibility rather than the plain old 'march relentlessly towards the enemy' tactic. In short he had the perception and conviction to learn from his own mistakes and alter his tactics accordingly. He defeated Hannibal whilst being his greatest admirer.
Hannibal supposedly sent in spies to Scipio's camp to learn the Roman strengths. These spies were all caught but they weren't executed as was common practice back then. Scipio was so confident of victory that he willingly showed the spies round his camp and gave them details of his troops in some depth. Hannibal was shocked to hear this news and maybe even unnerved by the brazen display of confidence.

However, if we are allowed to vote for any military leader and not limit the choices to terrestrial commanders, I would vote for Admiral Horatio Nelson. He was courageous, daring, ingenious and confident in his own abilities and those of his men.
One account of an early battle (when he was a junior officer) relates how he attacked two Spanish ships of the line in a frigate and carried out successful boarding actions to capture both enemy ships. He apparently was the first man to leap from his own deck through the huge stained glass windows at the stern of the Spanish ships, encouraging his men to follow him in admiration and pride.
Then there are the better known battles such as The Nile (where the French thought they were safe in shallow water until Nelson crept up on them and blew them out of the water), and of course Trafalgar, where he was killed by a stray musket shot.
In my opinion, he was the ultimate military leader and probably the greatest Briton ever to live.

[Brother Derfel]

My favourite general is John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. He never lost a battle that he commanded and was only removed from power by his political opponents.
Wellington himself commented that he could think of no finer site than to see Marlborough at the head of a British army.

[Galestrum]

I find it hard to "admire" most of historys generals, particularly those in pre modern times, as most of their wars were fought for personal gain and were ruthless beyond compare.

Off the top of my head would be someone like Gen Tommy Franks, leader of the current Iraqi campaign and the Afghan campaign.

If you are talking about just admiration of military skill, well thats a tough one, there are so many to choose from. Julius Caesar, vercingtorix, alexander and Scipio Africanus have to be near the top of the list, as well as Belisarius. Robert the Bruce and Brian Boru also come to mind. hehe too hard to chose http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif Gotta love Patton http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Parmenion]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ April 12 2003,10:09)]I find it hard to "admire" most of historys generals, particularly those in pre modern times, as most of their wars were fought for personal gain and were ruthless beyond compare.
I know what you mean about pre-modern generals being selfish and ruthless, and out for personal gain, but I don't feel my examples qualify as such.

Julius Caesar - maybe of the three, you could say he was out for personal gain. However, there is a lot to be said for his actions being for the good of Rome, the city he loved. He was a product of his era though, and increasing one's power base was something every patrician aspired to do. Caesar's upbringing taught him this.

Scipio Africanus - For such a great general, senator and consul of Rome, he didn't rock the boat or seek personal political gain at all. Instead, after his victories, he faded into history as he retired from public life. I think Scipio was a true Roman and a military man through and through. He has been quoted as being politically naieve - not a quality a powermonger would possess.

Nelson - lived and died a true patriot. Cut him in half and he would have been red, white and blue throughout. Personal gain was nothing to do with his actions, he was a natural leader of men and his career reflected this. He even dashed any political aspirations he may have had with his sordid personal life (affairs etc...)


Patton - a fine general and in retrospect, quite admirable. Still, I wouldn't like to have been under his command.

Robert the Bruce - how many battles/campaigns did he actually win? I thought it was just the one big one against the English.

Brian Boru - I've heard his name but I don't know what he has done. I'll trust your judgement on that one.

Vercingetorix - I thought he was a rebellious Gaul who raped and pillage his way through his own people until Caesar destroyed his army of barbarians.

Napoleon - A true genius indeed. I know that there is a saying along the lines of, judge yourself by the measure of your enemies. Therefore, a lot of European countries can proudly say that they were the enemies of the eras greatest land general. By all accounts he didn't rate Wellington's skill and ability, thinking him merely a sepoy general. Oops.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Skomatth @ April 11 2003,19:53)]
Quote[/b] ]Hannibal (look at my signature )



It should be Incendium ante portas

Fire isnt latin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

-Skomatth, imposing proper latin wherever he goes.

And to stay on topic: Alexander the Great.
Skomath, my respects, but you don't know what you're talking about:

when Hannibal invaded Italy, the romans were very frightened, and the legend says that mothers were telling to their children, like when you talk about the booggie-man (sp?), that Hannibal is in front of the city's gates:

Hannibal ante portas

I just modified the quote, and wrote my name: Fire ...

All right now?

[Galestrum]

hey Parmenion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif


Quote[/b] ]I know what you mean about pre-modern generals being selfish and ruthless, and out for personal gain, but I don't feel my examples qualify as such.

i wasnt saying your guys were qualified for my descriptions, i was speaking in general, in that in general i find it morally hard to admire someone that just ran around killing, enslaving, etc for personal gain

Regarding Caesar, hehe he was certainly a product of his time, if not the prime example, however i must disagree with your picture of him. I have read several books concerning him and the period, as well as read excerpts of his journal regarding his campaign in gaul.

everything i have read, even his own words, suggest to me that he was a self centered opportunist, thinking only about himself first, a true roman general http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif he started a war in gaul under the shakiest of pretenses in order to gain money for political gains and to pay off high personal debts - hardly "for rome". He butchered his way through gaul and his actions today would be called genocide - he was a butcher of the first order.


Quote[/b] ]I know what you mean about pre-modern generals being selfish and ruthless, and out for personal gain, but I don't feel my examples qualify as such

i think caesar perfectly exemplifies the selfish butcher egotistical maniac type hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Regarding Vercingtorix, yes he was the arch nemesis of caesar, but what you said is outlandish hehe, Vercing led the free peoples of gaul against roman incursion, but if you want to think caesar was "saving" gaul by killing and enslaving all of the celts, that is your option http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


Quote[/b] ]Patton - a fine general and in retrospect, quite admirable. Still, I wouldn't like to have been under his command

me niether most likely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


Quote[/b] ]Robert the Bruce - how many battles/campaigns did he actually win? I thought it was just the one big one against the English.

actually he won several battles, bannockburn just happened to be the largest. His brother ruled ireland for a time after he defeated the english there. most of his brothers died in his wars ag the english. he had all the odds against him and managed to win, and live to a ripe old age, and a free scotland (at least free from english rule hehe)

the measure of a good general to me is not how many battles he won and lost but what were the circumstances under which he faced them. If i take the first marine division back in time and defeat the neanderthal kingdom of ugga buga in 40,000 bc, with an astonishing 375,000 wins and not a man lost, what did i really accomplish? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

most of the generals i admire faced tough situations, if not were underdogs, or faced foes worthy of themselves. just to illustrate my way of thinking http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Quote[/b] ]Brian Boru - I've heard his name but I don't know what he has done. I'll trust your judgement on that one

irish king that united most of ireland against the vikings and pro viking irish, fought them for like 40 years as i recall, and at an old age he defeated the vikings soundly, he was killed by a small group of vikings while their army was routing, his son took up the war in his stead afterwards. he is obscure and maybe didnt have the "sexy" battles, but he won victories that were far more impressive against tougher odds, imo.


Quote[/b] ]Napoleon - A true genius indeed. I know that there is a saying along the lines of, judge yourself by the measure of your enemies. Therefore, a lot of European countries can proudly say that they were the enemies of the eras greatest land general. By all accounts he didn't rate Wellington's skill and ability, thinking him merely a sepoy general. Oops.

yeah, but he did have europe quaking in its boots. wellington also had the luxury of having all of europe as allies, whereas nappy had everyone as enemies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Parmenion]

I think I'm just overly-biased towards Caesar as I've read most of the works, both by himself and other contemporary historians. You're perfectly right that he was a butcher and mass-murderer. It's strange how he has become more of a tragic hero figure rather than a classic villain, but I guess Shakespeare has a lot to answer for.


Except for Richard III, now he was a villain......

[Skomatth]

Ahh ok lol. I thought u meant fire as in burning flames before the gate. Incendium is latin for fire. But fire as in your name...thats differnet.

[lonewolf371]

If you wanna see someone who doesn't do anything good for his country try Richard II in the 'Who wants to be the King' campaign http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

I still say Alexander, Caesar lost a battle, Alexander didn't. What a general's job is is to alter the circumstances of a battle so that it equates to his own soldiers winning. There are essentially two phases to this, the strategic stage and the tactical stage, with the strategic being large territory maps and troop movements and tactical being deployment and battle. Alexander was a genius in both of these. Wellington was an expert in the strategic part, and still fairly good on the tactical part. Napolean was a genius on the tactical part, but not so good at the strategic part. Generally Monarchs and governments are excellent on the strategic part and generals on the tactical part, see where I'm going? Simply being tactically ingenius does not mean that someone is automatically the best general there can be, nor are they a great general if they know how to make the best movements and the best combinations but don't know how to use them in battle. Caesar, was an excellent strategic genius, he was able to organize the army so it favored him and erect fortifications and sieges so the benefitted him. However he lost to Pompey, even though Pompey was unable to entirely destroy Caesar's force Caesar still lost, something Alexander didn't. As for Scipio, an excellent tactical genius but in strategy and politics he was essentially dumb, and the Senate soon discarded him. He lived out a peaceful life afterwards, dying the year after Hannibal.

PS-pr I believe that he assumed that you meant 'fire ante portas' as a command, not 'Fire, ante portas'. Therefore it would be Incendium ante portas instead, as he did not know that you were referring to yourself in you sig.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Skomatth @ April 13 2003,15:11)]Ahh ok lol. I thought u meant fire as in burning flames before the gate. Incendium is latin for fire. But fire as in your name...thats differnet.
Indeed, Skomath and Lonewolf, I understood the misunderstanding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Well, you all know now ... I know that Incedium means fire in latin, but thx anyway ...

all best ...

[Lechev]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ April 10 2003,17:02)]Good to see that I'm not the only Rommel fan here.
NP m8, I respect Rommel for the following reasons :-

1) He had observe the Geneva Convention ( unlike the Japs and some of this counterparts in Europe ) i.e did not shot the POWs just to save rations but they were given adequate medical attention as well.

2) He is fighting a war where supplies has less than 40% of chance to reach him.

3) His innovative ways of converting the 88mm anti-aircraft guns to take out British Tanks which that time out-match and out guns his Mark3 Panzers making his enemies believed that the Afrika Korps have superior weapons

4) The perserverance and determination to take out Turbruk.

5) It takes 2 famous Generals from the Allie's side ( Monty & Patten ) to eventually defeated him. But I firmly believed he loose the War due to lack of supplies ( All his supplies were soak up by Hitler's eastern front leaving him little or none ).

6) His Afrika Korps is consider one of the world's best elites specialise in desert warfare.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Nowake]

True ... all is true ...

Hitler had 4 military geniuses, and he anihilated their talent through stupid decisions:

Guderian, Hoth, Rommel and Manstein ...

[Lechev]

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ April 16 2003,02:07)]Guderian, Hoth, Rommel and Manstein ...
I believed Manstein also lost his son in the Eastern Front....

Do you think Ruinstedt ( forgive my spelling he is the chief German comdr in operation market garden ) qualify to be the fifth military genius?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Skomatth]

Mulieres ante portas Currete

[Nowake]

Skomath, stay cool ... I know some latin, but I'm not going to wear a discusion using this language ... OH, irony is not the best move on this forum ...

Lechev, Runstedt never lost a battle and when it was put in an impossible situation by Hitlers orders, he resigned ... An admirable general, but he didn't had the spark the other four had ... Guderian was the father of Blitzkrieg (he wrote Acthung Panzer), Manstein gave Hitler the Ardennes, Rommel ... well, we all know, and Hoth's tactics for the use of Panzers were more than briliant ...

[Leet Eriksson]

In every region i have at least one leader i admire:

EDIT:Africa:

Ma' Al Aeinein

Ahmed Al Mahedi

Shaka

Australia:

Don't remember http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

North America:

Washington(War for independence)

Tecumseh(Native American Rebellion against the Americans)

South America:

Montezuma

Europe:

Napoleon

Julius Ceasar

Charlemagne

Greece:

Belisarius

Alexander the Macedonian(the Great)


Asia:

Ghengis Khan

Timur Leng

Subotai

Liu Bei

Cao Cao

Zhuge Liang

Pang Tong(i heard he surpassed Zhuge Liang in tactics and
strategy but died before him)

Sun Jian(descendant of Sun Tzu)

Islamic:

Khalid Bin Al Waleed

Salahudin Bin Ayoub

Tariq Bin Zyad

Imad Al Din Zengi

Noor Al Din Zenki

Asad Al Din Shirkuh

Mahmoud Al Ghaznawei

Arabic(before Islam):

Al Zeer Salem

Khalid bin Saqr

WWII era Middle Eastern:

Yousef Al Adma

Al Keilani

Al Sherreef Hussein

Faisal Bin Hussein

WWII Era:

Montgomery

Churchill

Rommel

Patton

Greatest General of All Time:

Alexander the Great(he is also mentioned in the quran http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)

wow i never imagined i'd have a long list http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[redrooster]

Yeah Pang Tong was mourned for unfulfilled destiny (or rather potential).
Actually, Zhou Yu was thought to be a superior strategist to Zhuge Liang. But the role of Zhuge Liang was played up in the novel Ramnce of the Three Kingdom so people tend to think he is like some universal genius and god of the battlefield, so much so that there are temples in China reveling him for being the embodiment of wisdom and intelligence. But Zhou Yu was the one who master-minded the victory of Shu and Wu at Chi Bi (battle of the red cliff). In the real battle Zhuge Liang had nothing much of a role to play but the novel added some stories to make him more important. Although i think Zhuge Liang had the last laugh after he antagonised Zhou Yu to death later in the period.
Liu Bei was a weakling but fortunate to have good retainers, Cao Cao was sworn to Sun Tzi's book but again the novel played him to be the bad guy.

[kataphraktoi]

Heraclius....the most underestimated general

okay okay so he married his niece....

no-nonsense general

leadership on par with Alexander the Great, in short charismatic in his own right.

fought against the odds, Avars, Persians and Slavs main enemies, overstretched boundaries and empty treasury.

hard working administrator on the field and off the field

developed the themata system or laid the foundation for it, a lasting achievement

HE SAVED YOUR A**** WESTERN EUROPE

despite the loss of Syria and EGypt it did not tarnish his acheivements, Syria and Egypt was only 20% of the empire whereas the rest were lost under future rulers.


Edit:Language

[Nowake]

wasn't his period an era of renaissance? Something to do with reorganization, if I remember corectly.

[kataphraktoi]

Heraclius period was the period of the "two fights for survival"

The first being against the Persian onslaught.

The second being the Arab advance beginning in Heraclius's last years.

He reorganised the Empire on military lines.

He was greater than even Belisarius, while not as strategically as imaginative as Belisarius he did however formalise the role of cavalry over infantry as the dominant arm of the empire.

Heraclius had to play general, administrator and ruler all at once, his hard work was wasted when the Arabs advanced against his barely secured provinces.

It is only recent that scholars have given Heraclius a mention - the Crusaders of the 11th century considered Heraclius the first crusader funnily enough.

The Renaissance u referring to is probably the Macedonian resurgence starting from Basil I to Basil II.

[Heraclius]

I'd have to say Kataphraktoi hit the nail right on the head. couldn't have said it better. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[whiskeyjack]

Someone mentioned Brian Boru. Off the top of my head he was the high king of Ireland at the beginning of the 11th century. He repelled a viking invasion at the battle of clontarf in 1014. He was murdered by a traitor after the battle while he was in his tent praying. If i can remember more i'll post, he's probably the most famous Irish general. He wouldn't be out of place in VI as king of the Irish http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Nowake]

I thought he was murdered by some vikings, while the battle was at the end.

Anyway, is the timeframe of VI so long? Untill 1033?

[Leet Eriksson]

it is until 1085,the begining of MTW,so it probably covers the time of brian boru.

[Ktonos]

Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Napoleon are mostly considered as the greatest generals of all times.

[Belisarius]

Make a guess http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif .....

other then him, or those already mentioned

Paul von Lettow Vorbeck
Lucius Licinius Lucullus
Carl Gustav Mannerheim
Lennart Torstensson
Johan Banér
Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba "El Gran Capitán"

[Teutonic Knight]

Don John of Austria, Alexander the great...

my favorite of all.....Xenophon

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Caeser,Jan Ziska,Hunyadi,Duke of Marlborough,Montrose(ECW fame)and for his sheer madness and bravery ay Crecy,The Blind King of Bohemia

[MarkF]

Belisarius, Swedish?

I see you have some Swedish generlas on your list, would you not agree when I say that Wrangel and gustavus adolphus also have a place there (If we are speaking of the greatest Swedish generals...)

[Kanuni]

Magyarkhan of the wolves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[MrNiceGuy]

Guderian and Zhukov. Eagle and Bear.

[ShadeFlanders]

Charles Martel or King Baldwin I of Jerusalem. These guys were hard as nails. And the blind king of Bohemia was a pretty crazy guy as well. I wouldn't have liked to be the guy that guided him into battle. It's pretty likely that blind nutter will run a sword through you.

[Longshanks]

George Washington...he was not just a great general but also an amazing man. If any man but him commanded the American rebels I'm convinced Britain would have won. He held the rag-tag, often poorly supplied and unpaid army together during its darkest hours, and he was Houdini on the battlefield. Just when the British thought they had the American Army, Washington would escape to fight again. He may have lost most of his battles, but that was to be expected. He also won when it counted, and was always able to escape with his army intact. What I most admire about Washington though is that he could have been King or Dictator after the war. He was so popular and had the absolute loyalty of the army, he could have easily went the Napoleon route. He declined though, and he also set the tradition of American presidents only serving two terms in office. After his 2nd term, Washington retired from public life, despite the fact that there was no such thing as term limits, and he would have won re-election in a landslide. Most successful revolutions devour themselves in the peace that follows. America's didn't only because of Washington.

[Belisarius]

Quote[/b] (MarkF @ May 13 2003,12:56)]Belisarius, Swedish?

I see you have some Swedish generlas on your list, would you not agree when I say that Wrangel and gustavus adolphus also have a place there (If we are speaking of the greatest Swedish generals...)
Swedish??? I thought I was Eastern Roman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , seriously though I mentioned Banér and Torstensson because GIIA was already mentioned, and what those two Fieldmarshalls did was quite astounding.

Wrangel? Karl Gustav Wrangel? Dont make me laugh.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

SS - Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich, SD







in reality, id want to be GERMANICVS or some other random roman general. thos guys seemed to have it pretty good

[Belisarius]

Quote[/b] (TuffStuffMcGruff @ May 16 2003,09:25)]SS - Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich, SD
You are joking right? I Hope you are joking. If you are not joking, I hope you really dont know what you are talking about. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (TuffStuffMcGruff @ May 16 2003,09:25)]SS - Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich, SD
Tuff I hope you are joking. There was nothing admirable about the final solution.

[MarkF]

So sorry Belisarius the fact that you knew the names of those Swedish generals (which most people don't) and that your sig says that your from the cold north led me to believe so?

I regard Wrangel as one of the greatest cavalry commanders from the 30year war in germany. but thats just my opinion

[Belisarius]

Quote[/b] (MarkF @ May 17 2003,05:36)]So sorry Belisarius the fact that you knew the names of those Swedish generals (which most people don't) and that your sig says that your from the cold north led me to believe so?

I regard Wrangel as one of the greatest cavalry commanders from the 30year war in germany. but thats just my opinion
Nonono I am Swedish I was just pulling your leg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I consider Königsmarck to be a much more able commander then Wrangel, especially since he managed to loose at Fehrbellin during the early stages of the war against Denmarck 1667-1676(?).... Though to be fair he was a bit senile at that time.

[MarkF]

OT: trodde vell det... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[nokhor]

1) louis nicholas davout. arguably napoleon's finest marshal, and i'm arguing.


troops in his corp performed amazing feats of marching, fighting, and defending and not just compared to the enemies they were combatting but also compared to the other napoleonic corp commanders often in the same battle. he never lost a battle of subsection of a battle he was directly responsible for. His subjugation of the upper nile, The march of his troops to austerlitz, his defense at jena-auerstadt, his attack at borodino, and his defense of hamburg until napoleon's first abdication i consider just superb.

virtues:
honesty-On his personal side, nappy granted him more wealth than a lot of his other marshals cuz nappy knew, that unlike them, davout wouldn't use his position to steal blindly.

loyalty-again unlike his fellow marshals, davout refused to renounce napoleon and swear fealty to the new french king after nappy's first abdication.

vices:
adultery: there were rumours of him having a polish mistress during his administration of that land.

ambition: according to his enemies, he also schemed to be made king of poland.


2) oda nobunaga -sheer tenacity don't want to make this thread too long.

3) genghis khan - during the battle of the carts he forced his enemies to fight a static pitched battle as oppossed to the usual steppe battle of fluid withdraw and attack, hit and run etc. as far as i know there has never been a battle in the steppe like that before or since.

[Knight_Yellow]

Hmm lotsa votes for gehngis kahn

i probably shouldnt but when i was a laddy i used to think he was called Angus Kahn.




http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Brother Derfel]

Who lead hordes of screaming Celtic fans into battle.......

[Daevyll]

I'd have to say Heinz Guderian.

Also Rommel is badly overrated http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Daevyll]

Quote[/b] (TuffStuffMcGruff @ May 16 2003,09:25)]SS - Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich, SD
He was not even a military commander you dolt.
'SD' means 'Sicherheids Dienst' or Security Service.

The man 'most' responsible for the Holocaust after Hitler himself, excellent rolemodel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[ICantSpellDawg]

and hence, at the bottom of my post, i wrote IN REALITY...

someone else wrote hitler
i just wrote it cuz it is an impressivly long title that i knew off of the top of my head and was an actual general

he was a commander in the security police branch of the algemeine-SS and, before he was killed, was the head of Nazi occupied moravia

and no, i wasnt serious

[ICantSpellDawg]

Quote[/b] ]The man 'most' responsible for the Holocaust after Hitler himself, excellent rolemodel

there were quite a few people responsible for the final solution

heydrich was assasinated in 1942, right after the wanasee conference that actually determined the direction of the reich

eichman was technically responsible for more deaths and so were quite a few more people - regardless, i wrote germanicus at the bottom of my original post as the serious answer

i dont appreciate being refered to as a dolt, i know exactly what he was responsible for in his life and wrote the name because it is a long generals title that i knew off of the top of my head


if i had said tamerlane or Baybars or Pol Pot would anyone have taken me seriously? no - i didnt think so

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Tuff I think it was meant as a joke, hence the smilie?
Don't take it too personal ...

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Hannibal: What he has done, is incredible. Some of the most crushing victories of all time. And the master of how to read your opponent, and set up ambushes to punish their weaknesses.

Alexander the Great: Again a great commander. Though, IMHO to his advantage he relied heavily upon his 2nd in command (Parmenion), and on an army already driiled by his father. Also, IMHO Hannibal made more of his own luck then Alexander. (I doubt sincerely that Hannibal would have ever let the ersian army get behind him..., like what happened to Alexander at Issos). Also, if Alexander had faced any more steadfast commander then Darius, he might well have lost both Issos and Gaugamela (and Paarmenion saved his butt at both). And he was a bit reckless.

Caesar: Also laid the foundation for many of the present way of military thinking.

Napoleon: A brilliant commander... there are some who feel he suffered from battle-fatigue by the end of his career (hence his choices at previous to Waterloo and in some of the other battles).

Ghengis Khan: All says enough...

Uesugi Kenshin: The great opponent of takeda Shingen, and to a lesser degree Oda Nobunaga.. According to legend, when Nobunaga heared of Kenshin's death he exclaimed: "Now the empire is mine "
He defeated Takeda Shingen at 4th Kawanakajima (though aided a bit by treason or good scout-work), and a way bigger army during a campaign in Noto (1577), being outnumbered something between 8,000-30,000 to 48,000.

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Daevyll @ May 21 2003,06:21)]Also Rommel is badly overated http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
how so? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif