Summer Campaign-The Expanded Generals Version

I'm bringing out the new series here with the
Summer Campaign

While it isn't summer yet, I'm thinking this won't be over until then.
I'm going to have 5 brackets with generals in each. There will be repeats from the previous series.

Rules
There will be a poll for each bracket.
You can pick 4 generals in each poll, a different general for each duo. This rule is subject to adjustment if there is an alternative.
You are picking the general based on his qualifications, that if you were to give command of your army to a general from history, this would be it. You would entrust the command of your army to this man. Simple as that.
The poll will be open for 7 days after a 2 day lieu between the opening and closing of the polls.
The rules are subject to adjustment, until the 30th, when the first polls will be opened.

Ancient Bracket
Alexander the Great
Hannibal Barca
Julius Caesar
Sulla
Gaius Marius
Pompey the Great
Antiochus III
Scipio Africanus
Cyrus the Great
Qin Shi Huang
Chandragupta Maurya

Middle Ages Bracket
Genghis Khan
Jan Zizka
Edward of Woodstock
Saladin
Richard the Lionheart
Belisarius
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Subutai
Frederick Barbarossa
Vanislaw Jageillo
Charles the Bold
William the Conqueror.

Renaissance Bracket
Gustavus Adolphus
Tilly
Wallenstein
Jan Sobieski
Stanislaw Zolkiewski
Chodkiewicz
Oda Nobunaga
Totoyomi Hideyoshi
Tokugawa Ieaysu
Oliver Cromwell
Spinola
Maurice of Nassau
Charles XII
Piccolomini
Turenne
Duke of Marlborough
Prince Eugene

Napoleonic Bracket
Napoleon Bonaparte
'Stonewall' Jackson
Robert E. Lee
Wellington
Frederick the Great
Maurice de Saxe
George Washington
Simon Bolivar
Sherman
Grant
Kutuzov
Suruvov

Modern Warfare Bracket
Guderian
Manstein
Zhukov
Rommel
Patton
Montgomery
Slim
MacArthur
Hindenburg
Ludendorff
Vo Nguyen Giap
Mao
O'Connor

Naval Warfare Bracket
Nelson
Nimitz
Yamamoto
Togo
Spruance
Halsey
Cunningham
de Ruyter
Jellicoe
Beatty
Scheer
Yi Sun-Shin
Don John of Austria
Themosticles
Drake
Duncan
Doenitz
Jervis

Any more suggestions for the lists, name edits, or other, more specific brackets?
Any suggestions will be evaluated and either accepted or thrown out.
Open until the 30th.
Good Luck, and may the best man win.

I hope to get as much participation as possible, and make this an enjoyable experience for all.

Requested Edits
Renaming Renaissance to Early Modern
New Additions:
Ancient-
Middle Ages-El Cid, Alfred the Great
Renaissance-
Napoleonic-
Modern-
Naval-

One of the more famous generals of the 18th century was Charles XII. Also you can't forget the master of Siege Vauban although he would be a hard to compare against a field commander. Perhasp Pershing for modern times.

Also you may want to consider a medevil bracket, or at least more midevil canidates such as Gangus Kahn, Salidan, Richard the Lion heart (my knowlege about the middle ages isn't the best. I'm sure their are patrons who can just rattle off names.

Yeah, a medieval bracket would be nice. Thus we could actually have such famous generals as Belisarius, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Subutai, Jan Zizka etc. Additionally you definately want to add Suvorov to the Napoleonic list.

For the naval warfare; both Mahan and Tirpitz don't belong there. Not sure if they commanded any battles all together. Instead you'd better bring in admirals like A.B. Cunningham, de Ruyter, Yamamoto, Togo etc.

As to Modern Era, it might be interesting to divide it in two between WWI and WWII.

Well I would like to make a change to the periods. Placing generals ahead of Napoleon himself in the Napoleonic bracket is just wrong. Napoleon set the standard for Napoleonic warfare. Marlbourough for instance should most certanly not be there and since you have included him you would have to include Charles XII.

Id rather see you took away "renaissance bracket" and replaced it with "Early modern bracket", approximatly from the end of the middleages until Napoleon.

Since im Swedish ill give you some must have Swedes in that bracket;

Gustatvus II of course (u allready have him)
Charles X
Charles XI (possibly but more of organiser then fieldcommander)
Charles XII
Johan Banér
Lennart Torstensson
Carl Gustaf Rehnshiöld

There are a few more but all of the above would be very competitive. There are also missing some from other countries but (Turenne for instance). ill let it rest here.

Kalle

For the Early modern bracket, don't forget Matthias Gallas~:rolleyes:

Also, I insist you add a medieval bracket. There are plenty of famous medieval military commanders (Genghis Khan, Nur al-Din, Saladin, Richard Coeur de Lion, Charles the Bold, the Black Prince, Edward I, Betrand du Guesclin to name a few!) and they shouldn't be left out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

Gustatvus II of course (u allready have him)
Charles X
Charles XI (possibly but more of organiser then fieldcommander)
Charles XII
Johan Banér
Lennart Torstensson
Carl Gustaf Rehnshiöld

---

To not make the list all too long I suggest it's reduced to those three as they had the greatest impact. Gustav and Charles for their achievments and Torstensson for his development and creative use of artillery.

And Ottavio Piccolomini simply must be in the list!:whip:

Might as well add Spinola and Maurice of Nassau to Rennaissance, Kutuzov and Sherman to Napoleonic era, and O'Connor to modern generals. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

To not make the list all too long I suggest it's reduced to those three as they had the greatest impact. Gustav and Charles for their achievments and Torstensson for his development and creative use of artillery.

---

I dont know really what you mean with achievement and impact but I dont think Charles X can be overlooked, (ask the Polish and Danes if he had an impact), neither do I know if Torstensson was a better commander then Baner and Rehnshiöld was the tutor of Charles XII and many think a better commander (planner of Narva and other battles, winner at Fraustadt, the Cannae of the Great Northern war) but I dunno, of course there gotta be some limits or a finer division of brackets.

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

Well I would like to make a change to the periods. Placing generals ahead of Napoleon himself in the Napoleonic bracket is just wrong. Napoleon set the standard for Napoleonic warfare. Marlbourough for instance should most certanly not be there and since you have included him you would have to include Charles XII.

Id rather see you took away "renaissance bracket" and replaced it with "Early modern bracket", approximatly from the end of the middleages until Napoleon.

Since im Swedish ill give you some must have Swedes in that bracket;

Gustatvus II of course (u allready have him)
Charles X
Charles XI (possibly but more of organiser then fieldcommander)
Charles XII
Johan Banér
Lennart Torstensson
Carl Gustaf Rehnshiöld

There are a few more but all of the above would be very competitive. There are also missing some from other countries but (Turenne for instance). ill let it rest here.

Kalle

---

set the standard? that is a matter of debate, he did end up a crippling failure.

Yes looks like you forgot about Medieval era.
There should be some mongol generals, black prince, maybe Vladislav Jagiello, of course Zizka.

I would like more variety. Current selection seems too much western.

Ancient era - Cyrus the Great

Renaissance Bracket - There should definately be some ottomans in there.
Mehmed II and Suleyman I for example...

You seem to have too many Romans in the Ancient bracket. Might I suggest removing Marius and Sulla and replacing them with Cyrus the Great and Chandragupta Maurya?

Also, depending on whether you think the 500s to be ancient or medieval (perhaps a whole new 'Dark' Ages bracket), maybe Justinian I deserves a spot?

For Naval, please consider:

Don John of Austria, Themosticles, Drake, Duncan, Doenitz, & Jervis.

For Moderns, please consider:

Bradley, Konev, Schwartzkopf, Rabin, Giap, Kitchener & Allenby.

For Ancients, please consider:

Cao Cao, Belisarius (I'd rate him too early for med), Fabius, Ramses

For Napoleonic, please consider:

Grant, Wolfe, Forrest, Gallieni, & Shaka

For Medieval, please consider:

El Cid, Alfred the Great, Brian Boroihme (Boru)

Quote:

---

set the standard? that is a matter of debate, he did end up a crippling failure.

---

Umm, I cant really see how his ending has anything to do with him setting the standard. Germans invented a "new" standard called blitzkrieg still they ended up also a crippling failure.

If Napoleon did not set the standard of Napoleonic warfare then who did? Why not call it something else then?

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Charles the Bold

---

That's what I wrote wasn't it?

The real name of the Black Prince is Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales. Also, I noted you removed Bertrand du Guesclin from the list, which I find unfair.

More medieval generals to be taken into consideration:

Alexander Nevskij, Ulrich von Jungingen (capability debatable) and Vytautas the Great.

Götz von Berlichingen is also an interesting person, although he'd fit in none of the available categories. Possible in the Renaissance Bracket, but since the Renaissance Bracket contains nothing but post-renaissance generals I don't know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

This is a decision, not time to expand your sense of national pride with your hundred of generals (coughSwedescough), nor a time to showcase every, single, glorious leader.

---

Well, you listed three Polish generals already from the beginning, each of them comparable to the Swedish generals that Kalle mentioned, while only Gustav Adolf made it from the Swedish side:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Well, you listed three Polish generals already from the beginning, each of them comparable to the Swedish generals that Kalle mentioned, while only Gustav Adolf made it from the Swedish side

---

Agreed indeed, and not so few Japaneese were listed either I think...

All of those Swedes deserve a place in the correct bracket, national pride has little to do with it, I take not very much pride in people who caused so much pain wether they are Swedes or anything else but great generals they were, they were either the best or among the best when they were active. If you choose to give them a spot or not is up to you of course since its your topic.

In my first post I also give example of Turenne and say that more are missing clearly indicating Swedes are not all I think of.

So marshal Murat, perhaps you should take a closer look at Swedish history during early modern time and you will see it is not nationalistic pride to mention these generals among the best.

Kalle

I see also you have both Tilly and Wallenstein mentioned, arguing then that it would be wrong to include more swedish generals from 30-year war seems rather strange...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Ancient Bracket
Alexander the Great
Hannibal Barca
Julius Caesar
Sulla
Gaius Marius
Mithridates the Great
Antiochus III
Scipio Africanus
Cyrus the Great

---

Rather than Sulla or Marius, solidly competent but not exemplary, I'd say you'd be better off with Pyrhus, Aetius, and/or Belisarius. Qin Shi Huang, Sun Bin, Sun Wu (aka, Sun Tzu), Chandragupta Maurya, and/or Ashoka would break up the Mediterranean monopoly of the current list. In particular, Qin Shi Huang and Chandragupta Maurya, as actual empire builders, should be on the list ahead of talented wannabes like Mithradates.

Quote:

---

Renaissance Bracket
Gustavus Adolphus
Tilly
Wallenstein
Jan Sobieski
Stanislaw Zolkiewski
Chodkiewicz
Oda Nobunaga
Totoyomi Hideyoshi
Tokugawa Ieaysu
Oliver Cromwell
Maurice of Nassau

---

Not sure if they belong here or in a Middle Ages bracket, but the Aztec emperors Itzcoatl, Moctezuma I, and Ahuitzotl deserve consideration, as does Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui of the Inca.

Quote:

---

Napoleonic Bracket
Napoleon Bonaparte
'Stonewall' Jackson
Robert E. Lee
Wellington
Frederick the Great
Maurice de Saxe
Duke of Marlborough
Prince Eugene
George Washington
Benedict Arnold

---

I think Louis Davout and/or Simon Bolivar are more deserving of a spot than Benedict Arnold, competent yet essentially insignificant.

Quote:

---

Modern Warfare Bracket
Guderian
Manstein
Zhukov
Rommel
Patton
Montgomery
Slim
MacArthur
Hindenburg
Ludendorff

---

von Runstedt (OK, enough of the Wehrmacht) and Koniev easily more deserving than Hindenburg who, with Ludendorff on the list, is redundant (and both Hindenburg and Ludendorff should perhaps make way for Max Hoffmann). For more modern representation, you should consider Vo Nguyen Giap.

Quote:

---

Naval Warfare Bracket
Nelson
Nimitz
Sun-Yi
Jellicoe
Beatty
Scheer

---

de Ruyter and Togo are musts here. Also, it should be Yi Sun-shin; Sun-Yi is Woody Allen's wife.

Whoops!

New Edit, generals have been added to the list, others taken away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Requested Edits
New Additions:
Ancient-
Middle Ages-Alexander Nevskij, Betrand du Guesclin
Renaissance-
Napoleonic-
Modern-
Naval-

Suggestions are still being taken.
Thank you, and keep a keen eye to this leader as more men are suggested and removed from the list.

---

Renaissance: to be renamed as what it really is (early modern).

Ancient Bracket adds:
Sun Tzu
Zhuge Liang (Kongming)

Way too many good guys in ancient bracket lol.

my picks:

Ancient - Zhuge Liang. In fact I'd pick this guy thru all time periods.

Middle Ages - Subedei Bahadur. Modern military commander back in time.

Renaissance - Should Marlborough be in this bracket instead of Napoleonic? Anyhow, I pick Gustav Adolph from the selection available.

Napoleonic - a young Napoleon (the Italian campaign Napoleon). You can't go wrong picking the guy who the period is named after lol.

Modern Era - Rommel, more loyal than Manstein (if I'm gonna give this guy my army he had better be loyal correct?), and aggressive, did not see battles in linear fashion.

Kalle - polish commanders mentioned here were really highly skilled. Even into XVII century whole Europe agreed that they are one of the best commanders into history. They were crushing every enemies, Swedens too. Their biggest battles vs Swedens are Kokenhausen,White Stone, Rewel, Kircholm and Kluszyn (big number of swedish mercenaries).

Żolkiewski lost only one battle into his over 73-year life. His 6.000 soldiers were crushed by 60.000 Turks because of treason commited by nobles.
Than man won several campaings vs Russia (Kluszyn - 5500 Poles vs 30000 Russians and 5000 Swedens), Tatars, Sweden (Rewel), Moldavia (Bukova) and polish rebels (Guzowo).

Chodkiewicz - into his over 81-years life he NEVER lost a battle.
His most important victories were Swedens - Kokenhausen, Defense of Riga and reconquering Dorpat, White Stone [Biały Kamień] - (2.000 Poles vs 7.000) Swedens, Kircholm (4.000 Poles vs 14.000 Swedens).
He won battle after his death - CHOCIM 1621 - 48.000 Poles and Cossacks held 120.000 Turks, killing 40.000 and defender Republic. After first assaults Turks had such a big loses that even Chodkiewicz name was lowering morale.

Sobieski - grandson of Żółkiewski. In my opinion not as good commander and Żółkiewski and Chodkiewicz, but his situation was much harder. I don't have to mention Vienna battle or Parkany.
He won at Chocim into 1673.

So Kalle - don't tell me that these 3 guys did not deserved on place here.

Krook, allthough I could say a lot to you I will only say this (most other things have allready been said in other threads); if you do not understand what I have written then ask before you jump to any conclusions. Where did I say those Polish commanders should not be on the list?? :wall:

Maybe the marshal should cough a bit about Poles nationalism too?

Kalle

I agree with Kalle here. While we were accused for silly nationalism (a common misconception about Swedes I've learnt) there's plenty of Polish nationalism around...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Kalle - polish commanders mentioned here were really highly skilled. Even into XVII century whole Europe agreed that they are one of the best commanders into history.

---

Please bring some evidence of all of Europe agreeing that Polish commanders in the 17th century were the greatest in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Żolkiewski lost only one battle into his over 73-year life. His 6.000 soldiers were crushed by 60.000 Turks because of treason commited by nobles.

---

Are you talking about Tutora here? The battle where ~10 000 Poles stood against ~13 000 - 22 000 Turks? Not exactly 6 000 vs 60 000~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Than man won several campaings vs Russia (Kluszyn - 5500 Poles vs 30000 Russians and 5000 Swedens), Tatars, Sweden (Rewel), Moldavia (Bukova) and polish rebels (Guzowo).

---

Again, you're exaggerating the numerical superiority of the Russians. Not as much as above though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Chodkiewicz - into his over 81-years life he NEVER lost a battle.

---

I assume you're talking about Jan Karol Chokiewicz (the victor at Kircholm), a man who lived to be 61, not 81.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Kircholm (4.000 Poles vs 14.000 Swedens).

---

You're exaggerating the numbers quite a lot here. The Swedes had about 12 000 men of which about half participated in the battle, the Poles on the other hand had less than 4 000 men, rather a bit less (3 800). Indeed it was a great victory, but it had no tactical consequences in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

So Kalle - don't tell me that these 3 guys did not deserved on place here.

---

He never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesGregarius

deserving than Hindenburg who, with Ludendorff on the list, is redundant (and both Hindenburg and Ludendorff should perhaps make way for Max Hoffmann).

---

At least according to Hoffmann. :smartass:

You should consider having Charles XII and the duke of Marlbourough (unless you mean some other duke of Marlbourough then the one I think is famous) in the same bracket, afterall they were active at the same time and even met and spoke to eachother and it should definitly not be the Napoleonic bracket, they were active almost a century before Napoleon.
Kalle

I think it might be worth it to place Helmuth von Moltke in the napoleonic section. As a strategist and organisator there are a few who can match him in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AggonyDuck

I think it might be worth it to place Helmuth von Moltke in the napoleonic section. As a strategist and organisator there are a few who can match him in my opinion.

---

Well, I'll assume your referring to Sr. and not Jr. :laugh4:

Not sure if he's in Napoleonic for 1867 or if 1870/71 shoud put him in with the moderns -- but I agree he'd be a worthy addition.

Pre-1900 will be placed in Napoleonic

There are now 3 commanders mentioned from the loosing side in the 30-year war in the Early modern bracket in spite of them having the odds on their side and almost constantly being outwitted, outsmarted, outmanouvered and outblasted by the resourcelacking winning side :thumbsdown:

If you could give a reasonable explanation of including them (Wallenstein, Tilly and Piccolomini) and not Banér and Torstensson I would be surprised.

Not including Charles X in the same bracket is also beyond belief. Not only did he have supreme command of Swedish forces at the end of 30-year war, he also crippled Poland and made one of the most daring and surprising military manouvers in history when he forced the treaty of Roskilde on the Danes.

Kalle

I agree with Kalle. Unless an explanation is given I assume they were excluded simply because all Swedes are irrational nationalists and don't deserve a place in there.
Torstensson for one was a man who contributed much to how artillery was used for the remainder of the century and, on top of that was highly successful in most of his campaigns (although his personal life and career was perhaps less "glorious").

Also, I must second my own suggestion on Alexander Nevskij and Bertrand du Guesclin being in the medieval bracket. Nevskij perhaps fought against ignorant and over-confident enemies (crusading Germans and Scandinavians) but was able to exploit this in an excellent way. The battles of Neva and Lake Peipus are testimonies to his ablities.
du Guesclin turned the tide of the 100 Years' War in favour of the French after the disasters at Crécy and Poitiers. By refusing battle (mostly) he regained much of the lost lands.

Well Tilly was only defeated twice and that was because the terico was far outclassed by the new swedish way of fighting.

Wallenstein never lost a battle and played a crucial part in the puting down the denmark phase. He was certainly one of the most capable commanders of the HRE. He was killed in 1634(?) when he was accussed of ploting against the emperor.

I will add an admiral, Yi Sunsin of Korea which was able to defeat time after time stronger japanese fleets and died unbeaten in combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin

OA

The Greeks seem to be a bit underrepresented in the Ancient section, considering their influence on military history. Possible contenders could be Alcibiades and Philip II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Well Tilly was only defeated twice and that was because the terico was far outclassed by the new swedish way of fighting.

Wallenstein never lost a battle and played a crucial part in the puting down the denmark phase. He was certainly one of the most capable commanders of the HRE. He was killed in 1634(?) when he was accussed of ploting against the emperor.

---

Tilly, Wallenstein, Piccolomini and even Gallas to some degree were all great generals who deserve having their names in the bracket, but why exclude the Swedish generals of the time who were equally capable and actually won the war, despite the odds being against them?

It would be nice if Marshal Murat was open to discussion and actually tried to answer comments and give response on suggestions. Right now it feels as if he (I'll use he as I'm not sure whether he'll respond to this or not, or if he'll even read it) just picks the generals that sound good and drop the rest.

Yi Sunshin was added, but due to the variations in spelling, I can see why you would want him contributed.

I am adding Lennart Torstensson to the Renaissance Era, and I'm going to keep that name, just because I like the name.

I regularly peruse this section, research, pick the ones I view as good candidates and do not accept the others. I am not listing every single general that is brought up, because of nationalistic tendencies, personal preferences, relation. There are five more Swedish generals for the Renaissance, and while they all were great generals of their time, I'm planning on running a poll, not listing generals here. While you may deny personal or nationalistic tendencies in choices, I can assure you from experience in the previous run, the Greeks are pretty darn proud of Alexander, and won't give up his poster-boy image and persona. There is bias, there is favoritism, and I'm trying to stop rampant growth of all these French generals, all these German generals, all these Chinese generals.
Case of Nationalism
Charles X was not added because of the aforementioned 'crippled Poland'.
He crippled it, but tried to legitimatize the throne without noble consent, and inspired the wrath of the Sejm and the nobles of Poland. He had the entire country in his hand, but because he made a bad move, it ruined the entire invasion. A great general knows that there is not only the military but the political aspect to war.

While Napoleon may have thrown away the throne of Europe on the fields of Russia, he made an impact while doing so.

I am not trying to make the list to long, trying to keep it short so the poll ain't so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

While you may deny personal or nationalistic tendencies in choices, I can assure you from experience in the previous run, the Greeks are pretty darn proud of Alexander, and won't give up his poster-boy image and persona. There is bias, there is favoritism, and I'm trying to stop rampant growth of all these French generals, all these German generals, all these Chinese generals.

---

I know bias and favoritism (results of nationalism) is quite common even today but as I'm strongly against all kinds of nationalism I admit that I get a little upset when "accused" of nationalism. It's not my fault that Sweden (a totally different from today's Sweden, I might add) had some of the more capable generals in Europe for a short era in the early modern period.
Now if I was basing my choices on bias I would have suggested/namedropped Birger Magnusson, Mattias Kettilmundsson and Sten Strure (the older) for the medieval bracket, but I don't since I realise they were able generals but largely insignificant when compared to the generals of let's say England (or Nevskij for that part).
Personally I'm happy with Gustav Adolf, Karl XII and Torstensson in the list as I consider them the most successful (Torstensson sort of represents all the other generals like Banér and de la Gardie).

What about Feudal Japanese generals? Oda Nobunaga perhaps? Tokugawa Ieyasu?

Modern warfare - perhaps someone like Che Guevara? Whilst not a great general per se, he did revolutionise modern warfare in terms of making it more based on Guerrila warfare and hit-and-run tactics.

May I remind everyone to
CHECK THE LIST
before you jump in to add a little didbit.

Tokugawa Ieyasu, Oda Nobunaga, and Totoyomi Hideyoshi are added.

Ah, nationalistic discussions, the one thing Belgians will never participate in.:2thumbsup:
(Not in the military field anyway:book2: )

May I suggest Pyrrhus for the Ancient bracket, a gifted leader, only a poor decision-maker.

It's still the 30th so I'll re-suggest a man that never made it to the list: Edward I "Longshanks", the man who first used the famous English longbow tactic (ok, not in person, but you get the point). He also ordered the construction of the castles of Wales, some of the most strategic and impressive fortifications of the medieval era.

Polls are open.

Some generals were added to make the voting balanced and give an even number of votes.

Marlborough and Prince Eugene were moved to balance the Renaissance Bracket.

Good luck to all participants, may the best general win!