Gustavus Adolphus the Great

[Adrian II]

I think its much more than battle of Trzcianna - Straszewo - Pulkowice when Gustav II Adolf suffered terribly defeat and survived only due to luck. He lost because his cavarly could not stand polish even when polish was tired. After battle he confessed that he have never been into such a dangerous situation.

Trzcianką was a great victory for Koniecpolski. Yet it all came to naught, like so many victories in those days, because of shortage of funds, lack of political follow-up and intrigue among the generals and court nobles. Gurzno put an end to Polish ambitions, even though their forces (particularly the cavalry) were generally superior to the Swedes.

Then again, some tend to forget that Poland simultaneously had to defend another front entirely, with a much more redoutable enemy: the Ottoman Empire.

[KrooK]

Adrian but in the end Poland defend Gdansk and its region. Into XVIIth century it was more important than Inflants. Notice that after Gustavus death Sweden withdrawed from Gdansk region.

[Adrian II]

Adrian but in the end Poland defend Gdansk and its region. Into XVIIth century it was more important than Inflants. Notice that after Gustavus death Sweden withdrawed from Gdansk region.

I notice, But we have to grant the OP that Gustavus was one of a kind. His wiki is quite adequate where it sums up his achievements:

Sweden expanded to become the third biggest nation in Europe after Russia and Spain within only a few years during his reign. Some have called him the father of modern warfare, or the first great modern general. It is indisputable that under his tutelage, Sweden and the protestant cause developed a host of good generals — who continued to expand the empire's strength and influence long after his death in battle.

He is, and was even during his own time (The Italians referred to him as "The Golden King" and others as "The Lion of the North"), widely regarded as the archetype of what a king should be and one of the few European kings and sovereign princes during the seventeenth century worthy of the office. He was , unquestionably, one of the greatest military generals in all of history, and his battles were studied assiduously by later great military figures such as Napoleon, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Carl von Clausewitz and Patton, as they are still taught in military science courses today.

[KarlXII]

Unfortunately, Adrian, you'd find he's more greatly appreciated in Europe, but not in America

[Martok]

Unfortunately, Adrian, you'd find he's more greatly appreciated in Europe, but not in America

I'm afraid you're probably only too correct. While most folks here would recognize the names Napoleon, Alexander, and Washington -- not that he's truly considered one of the "greats", of course, but he's American, so.... -- I'm sure very few of my countrymen (outside of those interested in military history and/or of Swedish heritage) have ever even heard of Gustavus, much less know who he actually is.

[Adrian II]

Unfortunately, Adrian, you'd find he's more greatly appreciated in Europe, but not in America

As a matter of fact I think many more Europeans know about Washington than about Gustavus.

Anyway I'm not into worshipping historical figures, bar some exceptional thinkers and writers. Even those should be seen in proper perspective: not as superhumans or as exponents of national greatness, but rather as exponents of individual human achievement.

So it doesn't really matter to me. Except that I'm glad there are so many history buffs on the .Org and it's a relief that you can insert a name like Gustavus Adolphus, Duke of Wellington, Julius Caesar or Erwin Rommel into a thread and nobody will go

'Huh?'

[Ironside]

Julius Caesar

Huh?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now if you had mention something like Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck I would've gotten the list, but Ceasar is quite well known

[Warmaster Horus]

Even Rommel is rather known.

[PanzerJaeger]

I may be out on a limb here, but I don't feel a commander should be judged by his victories and defeats as much as how he handled the circumstances given to him. With the rather large scale of variables involved in a military encounter, I think that being 'undefeated' is as much luck as skill.

Take, for example, the American Civil War. The Confederacy had some brilliant generals, but those that survived the war were doomed to failure due to circumstances beyond their control. Robert E. Lee was a phenomenal strategist and his right hand man, Thomas Jackson, was actually undefeated IIRC, due to being killed at Chancellorsville. Give those men a set-piece battle and they would win it, sometimes even at incredible odds. However, attrition could neither be divided nor conquered.

In the same light, Germany in the Second World War is widely regarded as having the fielded the best commanders of the war. They pulled off some striking victories, and held off incredible odds - but political failures(Hitler's ineptitude) put overall victory just out of reach.

Are we then to believe that Monty was a better general than Rommel, Grant more adept than Lee, or Patton(undefeated IIRC) superior to Von Manstein?