In no particular order....
Ambrose E. Burnside
"Chinese" Gordon
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Sukhomlinov
...so many others:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Printable View
In no particular order....
Ambrose E. Burnside
"Chinese" Gordon
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Sukhomlinov
...so many others:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Have you seen him fight* a battle?
:laugh4:
*fight can be read as "lose".
What about Hitler? He conquered eastern Europe, France, though he lost in the end, so did Nappy (its what his friends call him).Quote:
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...
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)
I read somewhere that Sun Tzu was supposed to be a pen name, not unlike the American Mark Twain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Glaucus
Lets see my top 5 would have to be
Rommel
Alexander
William the Conquerer
Genghis Khan
Hannibal Barca
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
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.
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.Quote:
Alexander
William the Conquerer
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.
Other names to consider:Quote:
Genghis Khan
Hannibal Barca
AA Brusilov
Zhuge Liang
Cao Cao
Flavius Belisarius
Epaminondas
Shaka
You're not exactly going to label him 'person who wrote Art of War' though, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
Trotsky wasn't really called Trotsky, but nobody cares and everyone calls him that now.
Anyway, the person existed and his name is irrelevant.
Well, I didn't put Hitler because he had good generals under him... Napoleon actually was a genearal himself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Glaucus
Uh-huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
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.
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)
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.Quote:
the assault on Russia failed to account for Fabian tactics
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.
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
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.
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:Quote:
He never fricken lost
Thanks for that terrifically vague and utterly pointless comment - it made me feel so very welcome here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
I also like this general, he is a good study several aspects of warfare around delay, logistics, and economy of force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
EDIT: I always make sure to name a ship after him in HOI: II lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars
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.