I'd have to say George Armstrong Custer was special in a different way.
He somehow managed to be remembered by History as a General, and he wasn't.
That's quite a feat, to beat History.
I'd have to say George Armstrong Custer was special in a different way.
He somehow managed to be remembered by History as a General, and he wasn't.
That's quite a feat, to beat History.
Suiliman the magnificent
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/Hist...hope/hope.html
in 1520, at the age of 26, Suleiman became sultan of the Ottoman Empire. He ruled for 46 years until 1566. He was known in Europe as Suleiman the Magnificent because of his conquests and opulent court and lifestyle, by the Turks as Suleiman the Lawgiver because of his changes in the legal and administrative systems. He was also, as are all great leaders, only human, and there are many interesting stories about his very human failings and how they affected his rule.
but he was a great leader and conqued much of the Ottoman Empire
Conqued Rhodes from the Knights Hospitallers,
Conquered Budapest (1526),burned the city, and withdrew his troops
1529 he attacked Vienna but was turned back.
Took over control of N. Africa
1543 took over control of Hungary
Expanded east into Persia and south into Mesopotamia
"A man may fight for many things: his country, his principles, his friends, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mudwrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a stack of French porn."
- Edmund Blackadder
I'd like to congratulate myself and invite others to do the same for being the first person to actually try to defeat the Black Prince (the first general posted) instead of just introducing another general.
William Wallace could defeat the Black Prince. Why? Because he did at Stirling Bridge.
The problem is what are teh constraints on the question? Is it man to man fighting does each gereral have a set force? does each gereal get the army/weapons he comanded?
We need soem rules here
All you can do is pray for a quick death... which you ain't gonna get -Mr. Blonde
ProfDanelaw I am confused. The Back Prince was the Son of Edward III and born in 1330, Willaim Wallace fought Edward I and Wallace died in 1305. Perhaps you are thinking of some one else?
All you can do is pray for a quick death... which you ain't gonna get -Mr. Blonde
classic someone else trying to sound clever allow me to congratulate myself and falling flat on his arse. As mentioned, it was Edward I (The Hammer of the Scots) who lost at stirling bridge.
As for my contribution, the Black Prince would be hard to beat, being in my mind one the most kick-ass military minds in history. His nemesis would be Henry V, who, having access to the same troops and a similar understanding of battle, would take an army composed solely of heavy infantry and no archers. He would attack in terrible conditions (wind, heavy rain) preferably in the evening when light is poor. Edward's longbowmen and knights would be largely useless and Henry would slowly and steadily advance, sending a large flanking force of infantry (hidden by the weather and terrain) to strike them in the side. It would be a long, ugly battle but there are only so many ways to tackle such a good defensive force as Edward's.
My general, Q. Fabius Maximus, can beat your general. During the 2nd Punic War, when faced with an adversary who was an undisputed military genius - Hannibal - with an army that was at least as strong, perhaps much stronger, Fabius used careful scouting and delaying tactics to wear down his opponent.
Fabius used raids and skirmishes to disrupt Hannibal's supply lines, and scouted out his movements carefully. Fabius sent forces ahead to reinforce every town that Hannibal tried to attack, and burned crops where necessary to starve Hannibal's army.
Henry V relied on long supply lines and decisive battles where he lured his opponents into making foolish mistakes. Fabius was famous for being exceedingly cautious; in fact, overly cautious, as Roman public opinion resulted in his dismissal as commander of the Roman army. The disaster at Cannae proved that Fabius' tactics had been right all along.
Interesting topic.
Robert E. Lee is widely regarding as one of the most sound military tacticians of all time. Alexander the Great as well as Napoleon also come to mind. Hannibal has also been mentioned who made many Roman armies look totally incompetent.
But, I would have to say that Nebuchadnezzar takes the cake. He managed to consolidate many disparate regions into the very coherent and powerful Babylonian empire which effectively was the whole world (at the time). Never since has one empire dominated the known world. Not only was he a brilliant tactician, but a very longterm oriented ruler.
Llywelyn
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd
But could any of these generals defeat Q. Fabius Maximus, Llywelyn? That is the question being debated. After about 15 minutes of half-hearted online research I still haven't found anyone, but I'm not quite the historian some of these other posters (and one smart-ass) are.
Aside: I never claimed to be historically accurate, hooah, just on-topic, which I was.
my general is a good commander : Bigus Dickus from
life of Brian-Monty Python
Regards
Monkey
My Amtgard team has a Drinking problem- The Drunkerds
I would put Genghis Khan against Q. Fabius Maximus. While Q. Fabius Maximus' tactics might work against a deliberate opponent, scouting and delaying tactics would not hold be effective against the onslaught of the Horde. I can see it now:
Scout: Maximus, sir, we've scouted a large number of...uuuggghhhh *Arrow throw the chest, as Maximus looks up and sees 30,000 savage horsemen bearing down on his camp*
The legions would be destroyed in their tents.
Brilliant commander for the ends he pursued, effectively harnessed the technology and skill of his people to wield one of the most terrifying forces of all time.
My general: myself
I could easily beat all generals mentioned in this thread. For the simple reason that they are all dead and would suck at any contest except decomposing. Can someone please explain the true purpose of this thread?
Can adults participate in this thread ?
This is a funny one ROFLMAO
If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.
http://www.steamcommunity.com/id/__shak
ProfDanelaw,
I think any of the generals I listed, except perhaps Hannibal could defeat Q. Fabius Maximus. Robert E. Lee for instance always fought at least 3:1 unfavorable odds except for one battle. Almost all were decisive victories. A military genius at work.
And how can you really argue with the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The man conquered the known world. He's the ONLY person to ever do this.
And as for Hannibal, if Maximus had attacked directly, the Romans would have been defeated almost surely. Maximus knew this and that is why he resorted to delay and harrassment tactics. It was the only way he could beat Hannibal.
Llywelyn
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd
Hilary Clinton and the PMS Brigade......facing any male general she would kill him with a stare.
Seriously, I stick with Xenophon....his march to the sea with the 10,000 against the odds and constantly adapting to circumstances is legendary.
Dimeolas
Hey That's my generalOriginally Posted by [b
My nickname is the same as Suleyman the_Magnificent's lawgiver nickname given by the Turks. Kanuni means law giver in Turkish. Turks know him as Kanuni Sultan Süleyman.
Lol, this is a funny topic
Custer was in fact brevited to the rank of Brigadier General at one time, although he was not confirmed in this rank. As you say, he died a Colonel.
"Beer - Abraham Lincoln didn't kill the Germans so you could drink grapefruit juice on America's birthday."
-Seanbaby.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks