Your top 5 generals [Archive]

Aenlic

06-04-2006, 07:45

Just to be different:

Gaius Marius
Frederick II of Prussia
Georgy Zhukov
Erwin Rommel
Henry "Hap" Arnold

Picking just 5 is extremely tough!

We have to give reasons?

Very well.

Gaius Marius - transformed Rome's military into one of the first true professional armies, creating a military machine which was almost unstoppable.

Frederick II "The Great" of Prussia - brilliant tactician, reformed modern military training into a form we use today. Napoleon called him the greatest tactical genius of his time.

Georgy Zhukov - brilliant strategist and tactician. He turned back a previously almost invincible German army at Moscow, he was responsible for the encirclement and destruction of the German army at Stalingrad, he lifted the siege of Leningrad, and he led Operation Bagration, one of the greatest military offesnives of the war.

Erwin Rommel - brilliant strategist and tactician, hampered mostly by lack of supplies and troops and support and being on the wrong damn side. He nearly defeated the British and then the U.S. Corps II in Africa, despite heavy odds. If Hitler had listened to him in France, the Normandy invasion might have ended in defeat for the Allies.

Henry "Hap" Arnold - transformed a second rate army air corps into the most modern and effective air force in the world, by the end of WWII. Recognized the need for strategic bombing assets early on; without him there wouldn't have been any B-17's or B-29's in time for use in WWII. He also was an early champion of the Norden bombsight, radar, and windshield de-icing for all-weather flying.

Strike For The South

06-04-2006, 07:57

oh here are my reasons.

Lee- Hes Robert freakin Lee thats why
Jesus- Hes got 2 billion followers sheer numbers.
Mr. Peanut-Cashews are addictive and if you say no you just dont realize it yet.
Hank Williams Jr.- Hes whiskey bent and hell bound.
Schemp- The man was the 4th stooge a mere footnote yet everyone knows who he is

AntiochusIII

06-04-2006, 09:04

1. Colonel Aureliano Buendia
2. Prince Arthas
3. Paul Atreides
4. Athos, a.k.a. Comte de la Fere (with the accent)
5. Tarnum.

None of these are real, except for the fourth, but even then he had been thoroughly fictionalized that it is arguably not the same guy.

Cookies for those who can guess the origin of all five!

Conqueror

06-04-2006, 10:39

In no particular order...

Hannibal
Temujin, aka Chingis Khan
Napoleon
Belisarius
Zhuge Liang

Monk

06-04-2006, 12:50

1. Colonel Aureliano Buendia
2. Prince Arthas
3. Paul Atreides
4. Athos, a.k.a. Comte de la Fere (with the accent)
5. Tarnum.

Cookies for those who can guess the origin of all five!

I know 1-4. Since cookies are on the line i will not speak; but i will openly question Arthas' choice to burn Stratholme to the ground. Do you realise how long those fires have been burning?!(world of warcraft joke)

KrooK

06-04-2006, 15:53

Keba

06-04-2006, 19:34

My top 5 generals? I don't have any generals under my command ... yet. :2thumbsup:

Favourite generals would include:

1. Alexander the Great
2. Napoleon
3. Saladin
4. Mannstein
5. Chuikov - mainly because I respect him for being the guy who led the defense of Stalingrad

The Stranger

06-04-2006, 20:26

Napoleon (great tactician)
Julius Ceasar (great tactician)
William wallace (for inspiring people)
Hannibal
Tamerlan (i just liked it that he changed the course of the river to keep the other army away from the water)
Umeu Bartelds

that would be it. no particular order

Prince Cobra

06-04-2006, 21:01

Not in order:
Julius Caesar
Heracles I of Byzantium
Genghis khan
Kaloyan of Bulgaria (who defeated the Crusade knights in the battle of Adrianople 1205)
Sallah-ad-din

rotorgun

06-05-2006, 03:24

Hmm...difficult to narrow down five, but here goes:

1. Hannibal-master tactician who beat every Roman general thrown at him except one.
2. Scipio "Africanus"- the only Roman general to beat Hannibal.
3. Napoleaon-master strategist and tactician who beat almost everyone he fought.
4. Wellington-great defensive tactician and fair strategist who beat Napoleon
5. Zukhov-probably the only Soviet general with the brains, reputation, and courage to disagree with Stalin. If it weren't for him, I think that Europe would be speaking German as the main business and diplomatic language today.
:toff:

naut

06-05-2006, 07:53

"Eisenhower" - good general
Don't joke plz. He made so many mistakes and never won hard battle.
In my opinion greatest were
1)Genghis Khan
2)John Carol Chodkiewicz - in his 80year life he never lost battle
3)Tokugawa Ieyasu
4)Admiral Chester Nimitz
5)Stefan Zolkiewski - after 400 years Russians remember him as the one who captured Kremal

I wouldn't judge a general's ability by the fact that he did not lose battles. I would judge him on his recovery from those loses. Losing battles can make you become an even better general.

AntiochusIII

06-05-2006, 08:01

I know 1-4. Since cookies are on the line i will not speak; but i will openly question Arthas' choice to burn Stratholme to the ground. Do you realise how long those fires have been burning?!(world of warcraft joke)Hint on number five: the character came from a game...the game's sequel is currently one of the top topics in the Arena as of this moment...the character shows up in the last sequel before the current one, as well, but only in a story (not in-game)...the character has been referred to as Immortal Hero. That's probably why I chose him the first place. ~:)

And yes, I think the Warcraft III mission "The Culling" is one of the least enjoyable missions in the game. I get the WoW joke, though. :2thumbsup:

Rosacrux redux

06-05-2006, 08:12

Some underdogs, that tend to go unnoticed ...mostly from the Greek history

#1 Epameinondas of Thebes. My pet-underdog. He was an extraordinary tactical innovator. Introduced - among others - the skewed phalanx, the coordination between cavalry and infantry, and most of all the concentration of strength and attack of a single point in the enemy formation. He is the one that taught Philip the new ideas about warfare that Philip and Alex perfected in turn. His ideas and innovations have shaped warfare even up to modern times. Of those mentioned above, Friedrich der Grosse and Napoleon have stated more than once that they consider Epameinondas to be the most brilliant tactician ever and have seeked inspiration in his extrardinary performances at Leuktra and Mantineia.

#2 Themistocles of Athens. The man that singlehandedly won the Persian Wars and saved the "West", requires at least some aknowledgement, wouldn't you think so?

#3 Iphikrates of Athens. Another of the men that just "didn't make it to greatness" because of the circumstances. He also revolutionized warfare and paved the road with his innovations (changes in equipment, in role of the various contigents in battle, new tactics, new approach of warfare etc.) for the great conquerors to come (ie. Alexander).

(talking about Alex...) #4 Philipos of Makedonia. Without him, Alexandros would never conquer much... He created the famed Makedonian phalanx, he introduced innovative tactics, was a brilliant - albeit rough on the edges - politician, a determined statesman, a great leader of men. Extraordinary package. Had he not died too early, he would conquer the Persian empire and not his son.

(and a non-Greek underdog) #5 Cyrus the great. I wonder how nobody mentions the name of a man who started off from a smallish kingdom in Parsha and managed to carve a huge empire, with excellent leadership and great skill.

Monk

06-05-2006, 11:51

Hint on number five: the character came from a game...the game's sequel is currently one of the top topics in the Arena as of this moment...the character shows up in the last sequel before the current one, as well, but only in a story (not in-game)...the character has been referred to as Immortal Hero. That's probably why I chose him the first place. ~:)

hmm... immortal hero.. i got it!

1. Colonel Aureliano Buendia - a character in One Hundred Years of Solitude.
2. Prince Arthas - from Warcraft 3 and its expansion.
3. Paul Atreides - from Dune.
4. Athos - Oldest of the Three Musketeers.
5. Tarnum. - from Heroes of might and Magic.

AntiochusIII

06-05-2006, 22:39

hmm... immortal hero.. i got it!

1. Colonel Aureliano Buendia - a character in One Hundred Years of Solitude.
2. Prince Arthas - from Warcraft 3 and its expansion.
3. Paul Atreides - from Dune.
4. Athos - Oldest of the Three Musketeers.
5. Tarnum. - from Heroes of might and Magic.Congrats! :balloon2: I'm particularly impressed with anyone with the knowledge of the first. Now, for the cookie...

*ahem* Just look in the jar... :book:

Taurus

06-06-2006, 00:03

1) Napoleon
2) Hannibal
3) Genghis Khan
4) Attila
5) Wellington

Reenk Roink

06-06-2006, 01:30

1. Hannibal Barca: (Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae) Most able field commander ever. Constantly defeated larger and better equipped armies. A simply outstanding campaign he took from Spain to Italy. And wrecked terrible havoc to the Romans. A noble character as well. Sadly, Roman historians (ahem, Livy) slander his name, but his character was absolute chivalrous.

2. Khalid ibn Walid: (Arab battles, Yarmuk) "The Sword of God" Perhaps the most underrated military leader ever. Crushed the Byzantines who not only outnumbered him by at least 2:1, but were a well trained, well equipped, heavily armored imperial army with poorly trained, very poorly equipped Arab nomads with incredible ease. As for his character, though he was definitely more ruthless than most of the other Arab generals at the time (who showed tremendous chivalry), he still was very honorable to the defeated towns. When the Byzantine army that he would defeat at Yarmuk first advanced through Syria, he withdrew his garrison from Damascus and then ordered the taxes to be repaid to the people because they were leaving.

3. Alexandros III (the Great) of Macedon: (The Persian/Indian campaigns, Gaugamela) One of the best field commanders and brilliant long term strategist was able to carve out an empire from the ashes of the greatest empire. Showed great bravery as well as a comprehensive grasp of tactics. Though we have to give credit to daddy Phillipos II for the reorganized phalanx system/combined arms tactic, he was the one who used it well.

4. Temujin "Genghis Khan": (Unification of Mongolia, Conquest of China/Khwarizm Empire) The greatest conqueror in sheer amount of land, he also ushered a half century of Mongol domination after his death. People think of him as a leader of a horde when in reality, his system of organization was the finest until modern times, and much superior to the backwards European system... Essentially, on top of being a great strategist, he united the Mongols and crafted an incredible military machine, able to move rapidly without a baggage train. His massacre of cities was nothing really new; look to Alexander or Caesar and especially modern wars...

5. Napoleon Bonaparte: (Conquest of Europe) The last great conqueror to ever live. Took over Europe like a storm. Was successful for 1.5 decades...

Justiciar

06-06-2006, 01:44

In no particular order, and not necessarily based on their prowess in battle.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Erwin Rommel
Edward I
Genghis Khan
Tamurlane

Lord Winter

06-06-2006, 02:22

My reasons
1. Napoleon (Hundred days, Asurlwitz, Italy campaigns.
: The one who ended the limited age of warfare, Napoleon was a master in both strategy and tactics. He won countless victories against bigger forces. His campaigns were quick and effective and were an inspiration for the blitzkrieg in WWII.
2. Alexander the Great: (Gugamala, Jumba) The inventor of the reserve, Alexander carved out one of the biggest empires the earth has ever seen in 12 years.
3. Fredrick the Great (seven years war): Inheriting a very well trained infantry arm, Fredrick the great fought off 3 great powers of europe in what Napoleon called a master piece of strategy. Fredrick the Great was one of the first to use mass artillery in battle along with mastering the attack in oblique order, he was one of the greatest influences on Napoleon 50 years latter. In fact Napoleon remarked after taking Prussia that if Fredrick was still alive Berlin would have never fallen.
4. Hannibal:(Cannne) An great field commander, cannne was a tactical master piece.
5. Gustavus Adolphus (Breitenfield, reforms): Known as the father of modern strategy, Gustavus Adolphus established the first truly professional army that included the whole country not just the rich and the poor. Emphasizing speed he introduced the pistol and saber armed calvary, broke away from the block tactics of forming one line, he transformed the battle into a much more fluid and fast paced ordeal.

Beirut

06-06-2006, 02:40

Scipio Africanus

Ghengis Khan

W.T. Sherman

Belisarius

Sir Arthur Currie Canada, WWI.

conon394

06-06-2006, 06:20

Well Rosacrux redux beat me to the punch already; so I’ll put Themistocles and Epaminondas at 3 and 4. At 1 and 2: I vote for Wellington and Scipio Africanus. They beat Napoleon and Hannibal without the advantages of being essentially absolute monarchs…

At 5 I put Thrasybulus of Athens. Aristocratic heartthrobs like Theramenes and Alcibiades have usurped the credit he deserves for Athens’ Ionian War-alone against pretty much the entire Classical/Mediterranean world comeback. But in the clear light of day he stands head shoulders above his nominal compatriots (the afore mentioned pair for example). When the going got tough they ran like little girls (and realistically I think I’m insulting little girls here) into the arms of Sparta and Persia; Thrasybulus lead 70 odd democratic loyalist in the dead of winter (up hill – both ways) into the teeth of the of the Thirty, the Spartans and their Persian paymasters and restored Athenian independence and democracy…. Odds that pretty boys like Alicibiades avoided.

Honestly the only comparable feat (of a great captain rising from the absolute bottom to the top) is Epaminondas’ cross-dressing coup against the Spartan leaders of occupation of Thebes or Ghengis’ rise to power.

Close also includes go to Nimitz, Hugh Dowding (how many people can even come up with the name of the guy who commanded RAF fighter command during the Battle of Britain?), G. Patton, G Washington, De Ruyter, Nelson, and Maurice of Nassau. Yes there are better generals/admirals but I’m just am unwilling to include absolute monarchs, emperors, kings or their tools…

Lorenzo_H

06-06-2006, 07:24

1. Wellington.
2. Julius Caeser.
3. Scipio Africanus.
4. Alexander
5. Hannibal

And there are a lot more those are my favorite at the moment.

Rosacrux redux

06-06-2006, 07:52

Honestly the only comparable feat (of a great captain rising from the absolute bottom to the top) is Epaminondas’ cross-dressing coup against the Spartan leaders of occupation of Thebes or Ghengis’ rise to power.

Interesting choice with Thrasyboulos... very interesting indeed. I recall you are also a fan - sorts of - of Chabrias. Why not him?

Ah, and a minor nitpick: it was really Pelopidas' cross-dressing coup, as Epameinondas was at the time too preoccupied with his Pythagorean studies to involve in petty politics :2thumbsup:

Orda Khan

06-06-2006, 16:42

Jebe
Subedei
Chingis Khan
Hannibal
Alexander

.....Orda

Monk

06-06-2006, 16:59

Congrats! :balloon2: I'm particularly impressed with anyone with the knowledge of the first. Now, for the cookie...

*ahem* Just look in the jar... :book:

:bow: When you've had as much time on your hands as I have, you tend to read... or do other things. :laugh4: And as for your jar... welll *cackles maniacally* it's mine now!

*steals the jar and is never seen again... until he posts somewhere else :wall: *

conon394

06-06-2006, 21:01

Ah, and a minor nitpick: it was really Pelopidas' cross-dressing coup, as Epameinondas was at the time too preoccupied with his Pythagorean studies to involve in petty politics

Blast that’s what I get for posting when I’m tired, Boeotian generals just start blurring together, good thing I stopped typing or I likely would have had Epaminondas leading the Sacred band at Tegyra…

Interesting choice with Thrasyboulos... very interesting indeed. I recall you are also a fan - sorts of - of Chabrias. Why not him?

True I feel Iphikrates does tend to overshadow Chabrias unfairly, and for that matter I might have tossed in Conon as well for the early 4th century. In particular it just seems to me a whole slew of Athenian generals were willing to experiment with peltasts (Thrasyllus, Thrasybulus, Demosthenes, and Chabrias, at minimum). Iphikrates may have been one of the best but I’m just not convinced he was a lone Athenian innovator.
Iphikrates did very well in the Corinthian war, but he had his share of failures too – he botched the coup against Corinth and never really managed to land a solid blow against Epaminondas.

In general I think Thrasybulus did more with less if you will, than Athens more commonly generals of either the 4th or 5th century (mostly thinking of Demosthenes here and maybe Phormio). I would say he deserves the lion’s share of the credit for Athens Ionian war naval victories (Cyzicus, Abydos etc) not Alcibiades. I think (but no bet after the blunder with Epaminondas) he was at all the big three victories – something not true for Alcibiades. Unlike Iphikrates and Chabrias, Thrasybulus had to face the Spartans and the Thirty with mostly ill equipped troops not hardened professional peltasts and regular hoplites, or the Sacred band. On the navel side he was instrumental in restoring Athenian confidence and in a much more challenging situation (then pre-Sicily or post-Cnidus), one where the Spartans often had better ships and more money for crews.

Finally Thrasybulus had impeccable democratic credentials not just leading the Phlye adventure but at Samos as well (I don’t agree with Kagan that he was originally part of the coup of the 411). More interesting still, he seems to have preferred the more inclusive Athenian democracy of the pre-Pericles era. Thrasybulus not only sought to fulfill his pledge of citizenship for his followers in 403/2; but at Samos he (at least by my reading) explicitly bound both the Athenians and the Samians as together representing the legitimate demos/government of Athens. Toss in his support for the amnesty and the only real black-eye he ends up with is his perplexing failure to oppose Theramenes’ sleazy back-stabbing of the generals after the Arginusae …

Edit: Well Nemea River was no glowing victory either but the Athenians, Argives, and Corinthians got shafted - If the Theban contigent had kept to the planned the deployment the Athenians would not have been outflanked.

Mount Suribachi

06-06-2006, 21:46

No mention for Marlborough?

He's there for me with Belisarius (like Marlborough they won when he was in charge and they lost when he wasn't).

Julius Caeser - just for the siege of Alesia he'd make it...

Wellington - put that upstart Corsican in his place ~;)

Mount Suribachi - has dominated battlefields in the ancient world from Bactria to Rome to Gaul to Brittania; in Dark age Britain; in medieval Europe from France to Iberia to Germany to North Africa to thee Holy Land; in Medieval Japan; in Imperial Europe from Poland to France - he kicked ass!

Avicenna

06-06-2006, 21:53

In no particular order:

Sun Tzu - how did everyone miss this guy out? :shocked:
Genghis Khan
Tamerlane
Zhukov
Hannibal

Umeu :balloon2:

Rosacrux redux

06-07-2006, 08:27

Conon

Iphikrates tends to get all the publicity for the early-to-mid 4th century innovations in Athens, although I can accept that there are many more interesting generals and personalities than just him. Blame it on Plutarch ~D

You are beeing unfair to my most-beloved-personality (not general) of the ancient world, Alkiviades. But I can forgive you - he really wasn't a great leader of men in battle.

Also... why not Xenophon? He seems more intelligent, solid, innovative, and with a great theoretical background than most of those we both mentioned?

P.S. Nemea river was mostly "a soldier's battle". Since the Spartans outperformed the Athenians in front of them, there was nothing anyone could do. It was a good-old "array and march" phalanx battle and as such did not leave much room to innovation and sound generalship. Interesting enough, it was the bloodiest hoplites-only battle in history, although it had minor (or none at all) consequences regarding the greater picture. That's why it is not a well-known battle.

Aenlic

06-07-2006, 12:15

I considered putting Sun Tzu in my list, Tiberius; but there is still some debate as to whether or not he even existed or was just a pseudonym used by various authors and I've also seen suggestions that Sun Bin, who was supposedly descended from Sun Tzu was the actual author. The only known autobiography of Sun Tzu claims he lived in Wu in the 6th century BCE; but clues in the text and the writing style date the work more closely to the 4th century BCE, which would actually make him almost a contemporary of Sun Bin, who died in 316 BCE. I find it odd, if Sun Tzu was an actual person, that someone who lived in the same century - Sun Bin - would claim to be "descended" from him rather than just a son or a grandson.

The only thing we know without dispute is that the work attributed to Sun Tzu, the Art of War, had to have been written prior to the 2nd century BCE; because a copy was found in 1972 in a tomb dated to the mid to end of the 2nd century BCE. Interestingly, also found in the tomb was a copy of Sun Bin's work, also called the Art of War or Bing Fa. I don't think we'll ever know for sure unless an easily and indisputably dated tomb is found which contains a copy of Sun Tzu's work that is older than Sun Bin's work in the 4th Century BCE. I don't hold out much hope for that happening considering the speed with which China is destroying evidence with projects such as the Three Gorges dam.

Geoffrey S

06-07-2006, 12:19

Romulas

06-07-2006, 16:13

Extremely tough choice but...

1. Alexander
2. Ceasar
3. Hannibal
4. Patton
5. Stonewall Jackson

The Stranger

06-07-2006, 16:19

In no particular order:

Sun Tzu - how did everyone miss this guy out? :shocked:
Genghis Khan
Tamerlane
Zhukov
Hannibal

Umeu :balloon2:

am i in your list...oh :bow:

Avicenna

06-07-2006, 21:42

I'd be tempted to name Xenophon, were it not that I'm not certain how much of his claims were exagerated.

My top generals are Hannibal, Philip of Macedon, Cyrus the Great, Genghis Khan and Scipio Africanus; not just due to tactical prowess but also their incredible characters. Honourable mentions go to Napoleon, Alexander, Belisarius, Rommel, Tamerlane and (a personal favourite) Sertorius.

Exagerrated claims or not, the fact remains that getting all the way back to Greece from the heartlands of the Achaemenid Empire is quite an achievement. The nectar episode at the Bosphorus was quite sad though, losing so many so close.

For honourable mentions, I've got to go for: Ieyasu, Subotai, Alexander, Napoleon, Scipio and Zhu Ge Liang.

Aenlic: Really? I had no idea, I'll look into it. Thanks for the info :2thumbsup:

Geoffrey S

06-07-2006, 22:07

Exagerrated claims or not, the fact remains that getting all the way back to Greece from the heartlands of the Achaemenid Empire is quite an achievement. The nectar episode at the Bosphorus was quite sad though, losing so many so close.
Agreed; however I do think it's impossible to determine now how large a role Xenophon played exactly. He may have been important in the hierarchy of the army, but since it is his work it's quite possible, not to mention probable, that he exagerrated his own role. Loved the book though, since it tells the story of a campaign through the eyes of someone in charge and in the thick of it, which is a comparative rarity.

Kaiser of Arabia

06-07-2006, 22:13

Guderian
Clausewitz
Caesar
Robert E Lee
Tie between Napy and von Manstein.

Avicenna

06-08-2006, 13:55

His policy of living on clean land certainly helped the Greeks to prevent catching diseases, but they got many poison casualties in the end when they got the nectar.

The Stranger

06-08-2006, 17:06

im on his list. CHEERS Tiberius...:balloon:

Kalle

06-09-2006, 13:23

I see to few Swedes in this thread:

Some kings of Sweden and all of them prolly best for their time and top notch if looking over all times and pretty much always fighting against superior numbers and odds:

Gustavus II Adolphus (need no explanation, one of the best ever in every aspect of war)

Charles X (crusher of husaria and bane of the dane, enlarged Sweden greatly, won all his fieldbattles)

Charles XI (victory at Lund, one of the bloodiest battles of all time, I dont remember % of losses but it was really high, ill get back on this, after this battle he set out to create a new army and the result was "karolinerna" and the new allottmentsystem, the best army of its time in the world had been created)

Charles XII (superb user of his fathers creation, possibly the best fieldcommander Sweden has had even if counting G II A and Charles X but he had some shortcomings in other aspects maybe, and also a character that can leave no one without feelings, personally brave beyond belief) The above mentioned Marlbourough is internationally more respected I guess but had these two met in the field (they did meet in person) Charles and the Swedes would, no doubt, have sent Marlbourough home to mama crying. They met because when Charles was at the height of his power the allies fighting the french in the war of spanish succession got afraid he would turn westwards so Marlbourough was dispatched to meet with Charles and find out his intentions and also, the rumor says, to ask for some advice on military matters.

Johan Banér and Lennart Torstensson also deserve mentioning because after Gustavus death at Lützen and the devestating defeat at Nördlingen it was mainly these two commanders who first kept Sweden (and the protestant side) in the war and eventually crushed the enemies. Both of them brilliant. Torstensson also the first general of artillery in history.

Kalle

Patriarch of Constantinople

06-10-2006, 05:04

what exactly is the critera that we are supposed to rank them on, because there are so many different aspecs to being a general, strategy, battle, over all operations.

srry i havent posted. Mostly i count great generals by their bravery,will,tactics,intelligence,and amazing feats (i.e. Hannibal crossing the Alps)

Avicenna

06-10-2006, 08:21

Any fool can be brave, but it takes a brilliant person to be a great general.

Kalle

06-10-2006, 08:23

srry i havent posted. Mostly i count great generals by their bravery,will,tactics,intelligence,and amazing feats (i.e. Hannibal crossing the Alps)

Ah criteria that fit perfect with my Swedes:

Bravest ever Charles XII (for instance: with a handful of men fought the entire turkish army at Bender, singlehandedly rushed into the fortress at Krakow and by his presence and willpower alone forced them to surrender, always led from the front and by example (as did all the swedish kings mentioned in previous post), he couldnt do that at poltava since he was wounded and that would be a major reason that poltava didnt turn into another narva) one of the best ever tacticians also. Very intelligent aswell. Amazing feats, yes many many.

Truth be told of course his reign and the other warkings of Sweden put the Swedish people through enourmus hardships and suffering, would be strange otherways since with a population of around 1,5-2 million Sweden were almost at constant war from early 17th century to 1721. On the other hand if they hadnt maybe we would have suffered even more being ruled by the Tsar, Polish king or the Danes.

Hanniball crossed the Alps, well Charles X crossed the semifrozen ice to get to the danes, surely one of the most daring and rewarding moves in the history of the war, the kings own transport sank through the ice and dissapeared (as did also a couple other detachments of the army), the king himself had just gotten out of the transport though. Hannibal also in the end failed to accomplish anything other then a couple of tactic victories, he lost the war so Charles move was better.

Kalle

The Spartan (Returns)

06-10-2006, 17:37

1. Zhuge Liang: perhaps one of the best tactians in the world imo. i think hes the best tactian in the world actually! how could you guys not know about him!
2. Hannibal: Won many victories against great odds
3. Saladin: Chivalrous and Tactful
4. Caeser: Very Tactful
5. Alexander: He is great. Won lands from Greece to the Indus in his lifetime. only 36 years?

Cronos Impera

06-10-2006, 18:33

Here are my top 5 Generals

Burebista ( crushed the Kelts, Scythians, Greeks and Bastarnae in just a few years)
Michael the Brave ( won victories against all odds)
Leonidas ( for the greatest last stand)
Sobiesky ( greatest polish general)
Hannibal ( won great victories against overwhelming odds)

AntiochusIII

06-10-2006, 19:02

1. Zhuge Liang: perhaps one of the best tactians in the world imo. i think hes the best tactian in the world actually! how could you guys not know about him!That's because he has been so thoroughly fictionalized that the direct study of the actual historical person is very hard to be conclusive. And also notable is the matter of him not winning in the end, no matter his efforts. The victory at the Red Cliffs, for example, belongs to the Wu general Zhou Yu rather than Zhuge Liang, as is generally attributed by the popular folklore.

Not that it makes me less of a fanboy on him, and his responsibilities as a statesman, strategist, and allegedly inventor are rather remarkable. It's not easy to be the best in the age of heroes. :2thumbsup:

I personally don't rate generals, as there really are too many factors involved to say "Joe Average is a better general than Dick Jane."

Kalle

06-10-2006, 21:22

And also notable is the matter of him not winning in the end, no matter his efforts.

Well this really doesnt matter so much as very many great generals lost in the end. Napolon, Charles XII, Hannibal and so on

Kalle

Clovis

06-10-2006, 22:00

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Gustavus Adolphus Vasa
3. Napoleon Buenoparte
4. Belisarius
5. Frederick the Great

Honorable Mention - Charles the Bold of Burgundy

cutepuppy

06-11-2006, 11:00

1) the mongol trinity: genghis khan, subotai bahadur, jebe noyon
2) hannibal barca
3) alexander the great
4) charles martel
5) belisarios

for what it's worth

IrishArmenian

06-11-2006, 23:19

No particualr order, here.
Patton- gave Nazi Germany a taste of its own, warfare-efficient machine.
Vartan-a Patron saint of Armenia, I am incredibly biased. Fought the Persians with 600 and gave them a run for their money, and then some.
Brian Boru-Quick thinker, great strategist, especially under pressure.
Scipio Africanus-he beat Hannibal. I see Hannibal on people's list, but less people mention his nemesis.
William T. Sherman-made war terrible for the American south. Such a great plan, depsite its simplicity.
Honorable mention: Tokugawa, Tigranes the Great, Alexander, Saladin, Vlad the Impaler (more physcologic than anything else), Frederick Barbarossa, Rommel, Macarthur. What can I say, I like American Generals, for the good ones are great, the bad ones are incredibly bad. They are truly an EXTREME people.

Craterus

06-13-2006, 19:35

Leonidas ( for the greatest last stand)

I don't see how that makes him a great general. That battle was pretty clear-cut.

These two would definately make my top 5:

Alexander the Great
Hannibal

These are contenders for the remaining 3 places:

Saladin
Sun Tzu
Attila
Tamerlane
Genghis Kahn
Frederick the Great (Barbarossa)
Pyyrhus of Epirus

Seamus Fermanagh

06-13-2006, 22:03

In no particular order....

Ambrose E. Burnside
"Chinese" Gordon
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Sukhomlinov
...so many others:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Kralizec

06-13-2006, 22:24

Hmmm....

Alexander
Napoleon
Karl Martel
Maurice of Orange-Nassau
Pompeius Magnus

honorable mention:
Genghis Khan
Patton
Hannibal
Michael VIII Palaiologos
Wellington

Not the best per se, but some great ones that I know about and like. It should be mentioned that I know very little of Genghis Khan or Mongols in general, but the list wouldn't be complete without him.

IrishArmenian

06-13-2006, 23:19

In no particular order....

Ambrose E. Burnside
"Chinese" Gordon
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Sukhomlinov
...so many others:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Burnside was exactly who I was talking about when I said American Generals...the good one are great, the bad ones are horrible.:wall: :wall: :wall: The other ones are hilarous too.:wall: :dizzy2: ~:confused: :charge: ~:joker: :surrender:

Perplexed

06-17-2006, 07:03

Top 5 are:

Genghis Khan (Temujin)
Napoleon Bonaparte
Cyrus the Great
Hannibal Barca
Gaius Julius Caesar

Very Honourable Mentions include:

Timur the Lame (Tamerlane)
Charles Martel
Salah al-Din
Publius Cornelius Scipio (Africanus)
Sir Arthur Wellesley (bias)
Philip II of Macedon
Themistocles
Qin Shi Huang
William of Normandy (the Conquerer)
Charlemagne

Craterus

06-17-2006, 21:56

Umeu :balloon2:

:laugh4:

Have you seen him fight* a battle?

:laugh4:

*fight can be read as "lose".

Glaucus

06-26-2006, 04:36

5. Napoleon Bonaparte: (Conquest of Europe) The last great conqueror to ever live. Took over Europe like a storm. Was successful for 1.5 decades...

What about Hitler? He conquered eastern Europe, France, though he lost in the end, so did Nappy (its what his friends call him).

Heres mine

1 - Hannibal
2 - Pompey
3 - Eisenhower
4 - Alexander
5 - Wellington

(yes this is my debut in the Monastery, hope I can learn from you guys)

IrishArmenian

06-26-2006, 06:42

Sun Tzu - how did everyone miss this guy out? :shocked:

I read somewhere that Sun Tzu was supposed to be a pen name, not unlike the American Mark Twain.

Kralizec

06-26-2006, 18:37

What about Hitler? He conquered eastern Europe, France, though he lost in the end, so did Nappy (its what his friends call him).

Nappy fought his own battles and usually won. Hitler was not a general and though he did meddle in military affairs, his succeses when doing so where not just a little underwhelming :laugh4:

Csargo

06-27-2006, 04:33

Lets see my top 5 would have to be

Rommel
Alexander
William the Conquerer
Genghis Khan
Hannibal Barca

Pannonian

06-27-2006, 12:58

Lets see my top 5 would have to be

Rommel

I can never understand how Rommel gets into all-time greats lists. His methods were preceded in the same theatre by the British general Richard O'Connor, his record in defensive warfare was unimpressive, and he never successfully commanded large bodies of troops. Among the Germans in WW2, von Manstein, Guderian, Model and some others would rank ahead of him, essentially a corps commander.

From the same period, may I suggest the much underrated Aleksandr Vasilevsky, Stalin's favourite? Zhukov gets the credit, but Operation Uranus (the Stalingrad counterattack) was mostly Vasilevsky's child. August Storm (the offensive in Manchuria) is studied even today as the perfect example of operational planning and execution.

Alexander
William the Conquerer

He won the most decisive battle in Europe of the period, but I don't really see how his generalship can be rated so highly. Harold Godwinson did more with less resources. His campaigns in Wales, not to mention holding together an Anglo-Saxon army well out of season and beyond their service and fighting two great battles hundreds of miles apart within a matter of weeks. It should be noted that Harald Hardrada was one of the legendary warriors of the age, and battles of the period were usually decided within an hour or two. Both Stamford Bridge and Hastings were lengthy, bloody affairs, with some of the largest armies in Europe involved.

If Harold had survived for another hour or so, it would have been too dark to fight, and reinforcements would have decisively strengthened his position (they were arriving even during the battle). Godwinson pushed and inspired his men far beyond reasonable limits, led from the front, and chose an ideal position for the battle, strategically forcing William to fight to avoid being cut off from his ships, yet holding the tactically commanding terrain. William doesn't belong in the list. Godwinson might.

Genghis Khan
Hannibal Barca

Other names to consider:

AA Brusilov
Zhuge Liang
Cao Cao
Flavius Belisarius
Epaminondas
Shaka

Avicenna

06-27-2006, 14:04

I read somewhere that Sun Tzu was supposed to be a pen name, not unlike the American Mark Twain.

You're not exactly going to label him 'person who wrote Art of War' though, are you?

Trotsky wasn't really called Trotsky, but nobody cares and everyone calls him that now.

Anyway, the person existed and his name is irrelevant.

Reenk Roink

06-27-2006, 15:22

What about Hitler? He conquered eastern Europe, France, though he lost in the end, so did Nappy (its what his friends call him).

Well, I didn't put Hitler because he had good generals under him... Napoleon actually was a genearal himself...

Avicenna

06-27-2006, 15:37

Well, I didn't put Hitler because he had good generals under him... Napoleon actually was a genearal himself...

Uh-huh.

Napoleon was also famous for winning a few battles when the odds were stacked against him, whereas Hitler perches in Berlin telling his generals to face overwhelming odds even if it's certain defeat.

I think it's obvious which one was better in utilising his troops.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-28-2006, 02:33

You're not exactly going to label him 'person who wrote Art of War' though, are you?

Trotsky wasn't really called Trotsky, but nobody cares and everyone calls him that now.

Anyway, the person existed and his name is irrelevant.

The exact person who wrote the Art of War is indeterminate. Modern scholars, notably Griffith, feel that the core of the work is clearly the effort of one individual, based on the writing style and sense of coherence. As you probably know, however, acretions by others and commentary by others were often added to Chinese literature during this period with no effort made to clearly distinguish between the author and any amenuensis -- so any exact sense of authorship is subject to question.

It seems likely that there was a famous general who of the period who either wrote as "Sun Tzu" or whose dicta were scribed as a cohesive piece.

Regardless of authorship, The Art of War remains a useful and perennially modern text on warfare.

By-the-by, your Trotsky jibe is a hint misplaced. As with "Trotsky," few folks known the other big names as Ulyanov or Daugahzvili, yet their is know doubt that a single distinct individual and their accomplishments is under discussion. With Sun Tzu, there truly is some doubt.

King Henry V

06-28-2006, 10:22

Out of seventy three battles that Nappy fought, he lost eleven. Hardly a sign of military genius. He was a good tactician, but was poor in strategic terms.

Spino

06-28-2006, 16:31

Out of seventy three battles that Nappy fought, he lost eleven. Hardly a sign of military genius. He was a good tactician, but was poor in strategic terms.

I strongly disagree; part of Napoleon's genius was his mastery of strategic maneuver. His ability to maneuver his armies so as to keep his enemies off balance and undermine their position was the key to most of his victories. On the other hand Napoleon's mastery of all things tactical was arguably short of the genius watermark. I would argue that Marshal Davout, Napoleon's best Marshal and an outright prodigy (made general of a division at 30, given the Marshal's baton at the tender age of 34!), was the greatest tactician of that age.

Do not equate genius with infallibility. That kind of association is usually reserved for the gods.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-28-2006, 17:59

I strongly disagree; part of Napoleon's genius was his mastery of strategic maneuver. His ability to maneuver his armies so as to keep his enemies off balance and undermine their position was the key to most of his victories. On the other hand Napoleon's mastery of all things tactical was arguably short of the genius watermark. I would argue that Marshal Davout, Napoleon's best Marshal and an outright prodigy (made general of a division at 30, given the Marshal's baton at the tender age of 34!), was the greatest tactician of that age.

Do not equate genius with infallibility. That kind of association is usually reserved for the gods.

For the most part, I concur. Part of my sense of difference with this may be attributable to a sense of definition more than substance.

I define the relevant concepts as follows:

Strategy:

Large scale concepts and directions driving a campaign or underpinning a style of combat. This is further divisible into Grand Strategy (National Direction & Focus) and Theater Strategy (The concept and approach taken to a particular theatre of operations).

Tactics:

The specific manuevers and procedures effected by a unit during daily/localized operations.

Using these terms, I would assess Napoleon as an excellent tactician -- particularly during the period from Toulon through Austerlitz -- but I would concur that he was not "unmatched." Both Davout and Wellesley were equally adept tacticians, though of differing style.

Napoleon was brilliant at theater strategy. His emphasis on mobility and force multiplication during the Italian campaign was masterful, as were most of his campaign efforts. He usually created scenarios where, once all was said and done, he had created a local superiority for his subordinates to exploit on a tactical level.

Napoleon was less adept at Grand Strategy. His Egyptian expedition lacked true purpose, the assault on Russia failed to account for Fabian tactics, his assessment of the Peninsular conflict was flawed, and his "Continental System" was an inadequate response to the English blockade. His efforts in the New World -- admittedly an area of limited importance at the current moment of his decisions -- ran counter to the long-term interests of France, and allowed both the English and the Americans to position themselves to significant long-term advantage. Please note, I am NOT labeling him an idiot in Grand Strategy, but his efforts here were also far from flawless.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-28-2006, 18:30

Frederick the Great
Frederick Barbarossa
Otto the Great
Erwin Rommel (winner of greatest general contest at the SCC) or Manstein
Helmuth, Graf von Moltke

Honourable Mentions:
Sir Isaac Brock
Belisarius
Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck
Basil II The Bulgar-Slayer
Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor
Yi Sun-sin
Genghis Khan
Subutai Bahadur
Kublai Khan
St. Alexander Nevsky
Prinz Eugen von Savoyen
James Fitzgibbon
Leopold I, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau (der alte Dessauer)

Kralizec

06-28-2006, 21:52

the assault on Russia failed to account for Fabian tactics

If Fabian is the guy who avoided battle with Hannibal by keeping the legions inside fortifications, I disagree with the label. The strategy wasn't about starving Hannibal or by wearing him down with guerillia tactics- but by giving other commanders (Scipio) the time to achieve succes elsewhere, and by not giving Romes socii further inclination to seceed by losing another pitched battle.

Darius' campaign of the Scythians is probably a more valid comparison, but they were nomads- they simply rounded up their possesions and left before the lumbering Persian army could get at the spot. Unlike the tzar they didn't leave behind (let alone destroy) something they would miss.

I'm not aware of any previous "scorched earth" strategy by a sedentiary people (of course there's the practice of burning down conquered settlements and salting the ground, but that's a different thing- for one thing, that's the enemy's stuff you're burning), let alone on such a scale. Napoleon probably didn't think the Russians would burn down Moscow and the countryside just to hurt him, if the thought even occurd to him.

beauchamp

06-30-2006, 19:49

Heres my 5:

Khalil al-waleed (never lost a battle)
Chiggs Khan (never lost a battle)
Nadir Shah
Cyrus the Great
Edward the III (because of my family, seeing that my ancestor Thomas Beauchamp was his flag bearer and fought with him at Sluys, Crecy, and with the black prince at Poitiers.)

no particular order

Comrade Alexeo

07-01-2006, 11:50

1) Alexander the Great, Macedon, 330's BC
2) Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, Germany, World War I
3) Hannibal Barca, Second Punic War
4) Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleonic Wars
5) Paul von Hindenberg, World War I

1
Because the breadth of his victories are simply staggering. He never fricken lost.

2
The little-known German colonial officer who tied up at least 150,000 Allied troops in a goose chase in Africa, when they were most needed in Europe, leading nothing but a few thousand local militia. Actually conducted the last military operation of the First World War when he invaded a British territory in southern Africa on November 13, 1918, unaware the war had ended two days earlier.

3
Did what no one else could do: have a more flexible strategy than the Romans. Barbarians might have defeated Rome, but they had superior numbers and Rome was already declining; Hannibal had inferior numbers but was simply smarter.

4
His enormous charisma and ability to "divide and conquer" let him take on an entire continent of enemies - and almost pull it off. He had to be stopped twice, because when he escaped from exile and returned to France his army remobilized practically overnight.

5
Stopping the "Russian Steamroller" before it even started meant he singlehandedly prolonged the war by at least two years. Were it not for the horrific nature of trench warfare on the Western Front, he might well have effectively given Germany a victory.

Justiciar

07-02-2006, 19:14

He never fricken lost
Ya.. sure. I'll bet my socks that he did on a number of occasions but covered it up. Alexander is possibly one of the shadiest figures in history tbh. :dizzy2:

Comrade Alexeo

07-03-2006, 02:14

Ya.. sure. I'll bet my socks that he did on a number of occasions but covered it up. Alexander is possibly one of the shadiest figures in history tbh. :dizzy2:

Thanks for that terrifically vague and utterly pointless comment - it made me feel so very welcome here!

Seamus Fermanagh

07-03-2006, 03:12

5
Stopping the "Russian Steamroller" before it even started meant he singlehandedly prolonged the war by at least two years. Were it not for the horrific nature of trench warfare on the Western Front, he might well have effectively given Germany a victory.

Hard to separate him from Ludendorf, really. The two operated as a team. Ludendorf gets the credit from most for being the brains, but I'm less certain of that.

Redleg

07-03-2006, 03:19

2 Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, Germany, World War I
The little-known German colonial officer who tied up at least 150,000 Allied troops in a goose chase in Africa, when they were most needed in Europe, leading nothing but a few thousand local militia. Actually conducted the last military operation of the First World War when he invaded a British territory in southern Africa on November 13, 1918, unaware the war had ended two days earlier.

I also like this general, he is a good study several aspects of warfare around delay, logistics, and economy of force.

Comrade Alexeo

07-03-2006, 13:31

Hard to separate him from Ludendorf, really. The two operated as a team. Ludendorf gets the credit from most for being the brains, but I'm less certain of that.

I thought about that quite a bit, but I decided on Hindenberg alone because he, unlike his counterpart, was able to convert his victories into political power; no matter how bad anything else got, insulting or berating Hindenberg was anathema - and, of course, he became President of Germany later on...

Though Ludendorff is probably 5 1/2 or so on my list :laugh4:

Wow, Redleg, I'm shocked! You're literally the first person I've met who actually knows who Lettow-Vorbeck is! Yay :2thumbsup:

Justiciar

07-03-2006, 17:45

Thanks for that terrifically vague and utterly pointless comment - it made me feel so very welcome here!
If you took offence to it then there's only yourself to blame.. read what I posted again and you'll find that there's nothing in it meant to cause insult. I stated that Alexander is surrounded by myths and lies that he probably put about himself. That's my opinion.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

07-03-2006, 21:30

2) Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, Germany, World War I

That man was a national hero. It's a pity he isn't more well known. Always overshadowed by the more famous and charismatic leaders in Germany's past...

EDIT: I always make sure to name a ship after him in HOI: II lol.

Redleg

07-03-2006, 21:45

Wow, Redleg, I'm shocked! You're literally the first person I've met who actually knows who Lettow-Vorbeck is! Yay :2thumbsup:

I have ran across his name several times in studying different aspects of WW1. He struck my interest because of his use of delay tactics and economy of force operations. His logistical sense was really outstanding for the time.

Unfortunetly however I have only read case studies on the man, you know the bit and pieces of detail - enough to develop a decent picture of the man and his method of operations but not the detail. Normally these studies I have read consist of 10-20 pages of study, I wish I had more information on him and his operations - but alas I have had a difficult time finding comphrensive material on the details of his operations. I don't believe he is studied much in the United States either, he is overshadow by the European Operations of WW1.

If you know of any detailed books on him - I would be greatly interested in attempting to find an English Translation.

Pannonian

07-03-2006, 22:11

That man was a national hero. It's a pity he isn't more well known. Always overshadowed by the more famous and charismatic leaders in Germany's past...

He fought in a strategically irrelevant area, where it didn't really matter what the result of the campaigns were, beyond mild irritation for the British. The European theatres and the Dardanelles was where the war was won or lost. Similarly, the middle eastern campaign helped cause the collapse of the Ottoman empire, but Russia had been eliminated by that time, and the main Axis protagonist Germany was relatively unaffected by its result (the Brusilov offensive causing the effective elimination of Austria-Hungary was more significant).

Among WW1 generals, I would go for AA Brusilov, whose infiltration tactics were said to have helped inspire the stormtrooper tactic later used in 1918.

Comrade Alexeo

07-04-2006, 00:09

He fought in a strategically irrelevant area, where it didn't really matter what the result of the campaigns were, beyond mild irritation for the British. The European theatres and the Dardanelles was where the war was won or lost. Similarly, the middle eastern campaign helped cause the collapse of the Ottoman empire, but Russia had been eliminated by that time, and the main Axis protagonist Germany was relatively unaffected by its result (the Brusilov offensive causing the effective elimination of Austria-Hungary was more significant).

Among WW1 generals, I would go for AA Brusilov, whose infiltration tactics were said to have helped inspire the stormtrooper tactic later used in 1918.

1) The Dardanelles campaign was a publicity stunt, and a disastrous one at that. ANZAC, composed of arguably the greatest individual soldiers in the world, was a potential trump card that was simply thrown away, and fleet-overstretching by adding another front was the last thing the Allies' naval forces needed. Knocking out the Ottoman Empire was irrelevant because it was ultimately a paper tiger. The war could be won only on the Continent, and after Russia was stopped in its tracks only on the Western Front...

2) Lettow-Vorbeck kept at least 150,000 British Empire soldiers away from the Western Front. In the human-wave grinders that were Great War battles, those 150,000 could well have made the difference, in any number of ways. The fact that he fought in, as you say, a "strategically irrelevant area" makes his ability to cause the British to use so many resources against him only makes him more, not less, outstanding.

And its the Central Powers, not the Axis.

Pannonian

07-04-2006, 01:41

1) The Dardanelles campaign was a publicity stunt, and a disastrous one at that. ANZAC, composed of arguably the greatest individual soldiers in the world, was a potential trump card that was simply thrown away, and fleet-overstretching by adding another front was the last thing the Allies' naval forces needed. Knocking out the Ottoman Empire was irrelevant because it was ultimately a paper tiger. The war could be won only on the Continent, and after Russia was stopped in its tracks only on the Western Front...

Russia lost because the western allies couldn't establish communications with them. The Dardanelles campaign was an attempt to open one up. Its loss meant Russia had to do without British and French help, and they couldn't.

2) Lettow-Vorbeck kept at least 150,000 British Empire soldiers away from the Western Front. In the human-wave grinders that were Great War battles, those 150,000 could well have made the difference, in any number of ways. The fact that he fought in, as you say, a "strategically irrelevant area" makes his ability to cause the British to use so many resources against him only makes him more, not less, outstanding.

The British didn't really lack manpower on the western front, merely trained manpower. The armies used against Lettow-Vorbeck in southern Africa weren't really the top-grade formations as used on the western front and in the Dardanelles.

And its the Central Powers, not the Axis.
Doh!

Avicenna

07-04-2006, 14:00

[cough]

Scythian victory over the Macedonians

[cough]

Seamus Fermanagh

07-04-2006, 16:25

I have to agree that the Dardanelles campaign, if successful, would have been crippling for the Central Powers.

Strategically, if successful:

1. The Ottomans would have been deprived of -- or at least strongly limited in using -- Instanbul, Smyrna, and Izmir. The entire Aegean coast would have represented a powerful economic blow to the Ottomans. This would have severely limited the war-fighting abilities of the Ottoman forces.

2. A line of communication and support would have been opened up through Odessa -- possibly stiffening Russian resistance (chancy, as the corrupt Romanov regime might still have screwed the pooch).

3. Romania would have been open to support and reinforcement. They had already proved troublesome to the AH forces. Direct allied support and resources could have enhanced this effect (not by sweeping victories, of course, the Balkans did not bring such to the armies of that era). Remember, the narrowness of front was one of the limiting factors of the war for the Allies. Germany was always able to "under-man" the East (in relative terms) because of Russian weaknesses. Italy was a slog through mountains. Even using second-rank "colonial" forces, Britain and France could have aided the Romanians and broadened the war -- at a greater relative attritional strain to the Central forces than their own.

The Dardanelles may well have been a tactical disaster -- and certainly many mistakes were made -- but the strategic concept was superb. Churchill was a wonderful strategist, but tactically was always a cavalryman.