Summer Campaign-The Expanded Generals Version

[Marshal Murat]

Pre-1900 will be placed in Napoleonic

[Kalle]

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

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

[Innocentius]

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.

[Lord Winter]

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.

[Oleander Ardens]

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

[TinCow]

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.

[Innocentius]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[Innocentius]

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).

[CountArach]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[Conradus]

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

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

[Innocentius]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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!