Great General(s)

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Any thoughts on the great generals of the Middle Ages? Let's start with the 15th century...(Henry V, Sulieman the Great, Vlad III of Wallachia, Ivan III, Casmir IV, etc...)

I vote for Henry V (of course, that's partially because of the bias of my historical training...having a strong interest in medieval Britain).

[seireikhaan]

Well, for 15th century specifically, I'll go with Timurlane. I'm surprised you didn't even have him on the list.

As for the rest of the medieval period, I'd like to nominate Subudai Bahadur, Jebe Noyan, and Chinggis Khaan.

Of course, I have a slight preference toward Mongol generals.

[Motep]

Richard the Lionhearted

did a decent job on his crusade

[Husar]

Ulrich von Jungingen.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I'd probably agree Chinggis Khaan is one of the greats for the whole period.

[Conradus]

Let's not forget Bertrand du Guesclin and Saladin or Subotai and Belisarius.

[AggonyDuck]

If we include the dark ages to the middle ages, then Khalid ibn al-Walid is propably one of the greatest generals of the time. His campaign against the Apostates and the ones against the Sassanids and the Byzantines are truly impressive. Here's more information about his campaigns if you are interested. http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm

[IrishArmenian]

Define great general. Is this based on strategical, charismatic and tactical skills?

[AggonyDuck]

Define great general. Is this based on strategical, charismatic and tactical skills?

Isn't a combination of the three required for a truly great general?

[Orb]

11th Century, the one I know about, Robert Guiscard and Roger of Sicily are my favourites (and in my opinion possibly the greatest of their day).
Going later, Henry V of England r0xx0rz. Primarily because he beat France.

[Innocentius]

Primarily because he beat France.

And that makes him particularly great because...?

On a general scale, I'd put Edward I as one of the finest generals during the Middle Ages. Perhaps not a brilliant battlefield commander (which most people seem to consider the most important thing when judging a general/military leader) but a true Machiavellan lord.

[Conradus]

And that makes him particularly great because...?

Orb's British?

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Isn't a combination of the three required for a truly great general?

That was what I was going to say... C. All of the above...I think.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

That was what I was going to say... C. All of the above...I think.

yup,you need to have them 3 to be a great genearal.

[Martok]

Saladin has always been a favorite for me. You've gotta a respect a guy who managed to finally unite the Arabs and Turks of Egypt & the Levant into a single political entity, drive the Crusaders out of Jerusalem, *and* be known & respected throughout the world -- including during his own lifetime -- as a man of chivalry and honor. He was both a fine tactician as well as a great leader.

[cegorach]

Any thoughts on the great generals of the Middle Ages? Let's start with the 15th century...(Henry V, Sulieman the Great, Vlad III of Wallachia, Ivan III, Casmir IV, etc...)

I vote for Henry V (of course, that's partially because of the bias of my historical training...having a strong interest in medieval Britain).

Ehem... Quite many of your examples are from different centuries... But what really wonders me is why Casimir IV is there ?

If it is the same Casimir IV of Poland-Lithuania I am thinking about he was rather lousy commander, ar rather didn't fight at all and left that work to other people.

Sure his reign marked the end of feudal army in Poland (was professional after that), but the only reason seem his defeat at Chojnice and inability to convince anyone to fight without paying them.

Actually for Poland I wouldn't dare to find a single really good commander from that time - simply too few battles were fought and those were usually works of different people - noone responsible for more than one victory.




As for some my proposals. Janos Hunyadi, Skandenberg, Michael the Great for sure.

The rest is already mentoned by other people.

Husar


Ulrich von Jungingen.

???? Any reason for that ?

Sure he was wearing a cool white uniform with black crosses here and there, but his military achivements are most likely limited to one campaign in 1410 where he failed utterly - was killed and almost brought the end of the Teutonic Order which never recovered anyway from that loss.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Ehem... Quite many of your examples are from different centuries... But what really wonders me is why Casimir IV is there ?

If it is the same Casimir IV of Poland-Lithuania I am thinking about he was rather lousy commander, ar rather didn't fight at all and left that work to other people.

Sure his reign marked the end of feudal army in Poland (was professional after that), but the only reason seem his defeat at Chojnice and inability to convince anyone to fight without paying them.

Actually for Poland I wouldn't dare to find a single really good commander from that time - simply too few battles were fought and those were usually works of different people - noone responsible for more than one victory.

I just randomly threw him in there as an example. Of course, let us not forget that a subsequent century brought about (the last) great Polish commander...my namesake.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Ehem... Quite many of your examples are from different centuries... But what really wonders me is why Casimir IV is there ?

If it is the same Casimir IV of Poland-Lithuania I am thinking about he was rather lousy commander, ar rather didn't fight at all and left that work to other people.

Sure his reign marked the end of feudal army in Poland (was professional after that), but the only reason seem his defeat at Chojnice and inability to convince anyone to fight without paying them.

Actually for Poland I wouldn't dare to find a single really good commander from that time - simply too few battles were fought and those were usually works of different people - noone responsible for more than one victory.




As for some my proposals. Janos Hunyadi, Skandenberg, Michael the Great for sure.

The rest is already mentoned by other people.





???? Any reason for that ?

Sure he was wearing a cool white uniform with black crosses here and there, but his military achivements are most likely limited to one campaign in 1410 where he failed utterly - was killed and almost brought the end of the Teutonic Order which never recovered anyway from that loss.

Really? Alot of them were from the 15 centruy unless I'm wrong.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

[QUOTE=cegorach]As for some my proposals. Janos Hunyadi, Skandenberg, Michael the Great for sure.

The rest is already mentoned by other people.
[QUOTE]

Speaking of Janos Hunyadi, what about one of his contemporaries - Prince Vlad III of Wallachia?

[Orb]

Saladin has always been a favorite for me. You've gotta a respect a guy who managed to finally unite the Arabs and Turks of Egypt & the Levant into a single political entity, drive the Crusaders out of Jerusalem, *and* be known & respected throughout the world -- including during his own lifetime -- as a man of chivalry and honor. He was both a fine tactician as well as a great leader.

I don't agree with you. Among other things, Saladin established himself by brutally oppressing Shi'ism in Egypt and initiating the process of the invasion and Arabisation of the Sudanese Christian kingdoms, with provocation that could at best be called limited.

He also executed prisoners without a second thought and only allowed the remaining occupants of Jerusalem out if they could afford a ransom (otherwise they were enslaved).

The chivalry that is often suggested to be one of his characteristics is generally overplayed. He was, and acted as, a medieval warlord, not a knight in shining armour.

[Furious Mental]

Edward IV. Thirty-eight pitched battles all victories. That is far more than William I, Richard I, Edward III, Henry V or any other English king. His lifestyle of habitual debauchery and indulgence in alcohol was also exemplary.

[The Stranger]

I don't agree with you. Among other things, Saladin established himself by brutally oppressing Shi'ism in Egypt and initiating the process of the invasion and Arabisation of the Sudanese Christian kingdoms, with provocation that could at best be called limited.

He also executed prisoners without a second thought and only allowed the remaining occupants of Jerusalem out if they could afford a ransom (otherwise they were enslaved).

The chivalry that is often suggested to be one of his characteristics is generally overplayed. He was, and acted as, a medieval warlord, not a knight in shining armour.

but you mustn't look at it that way, the christians though he was going to murder their families and skullrape them... so when he didnt... he was all of the sudden a whole lot nicer... and since he left people out who could afford the ransom, the rich people, and who wrote history? rich people... so for them he was a nice man... because who cares about the pawns when the king yet reigns... what happens to the lowely life peasant is not a big deal for history... and i think he was known to be benevolent towards nobles...

[Furious Mental]

Well, actually it was mostly clerics who wrote history, not the landed nobility or knightly military class. There was obviously shared membership and coincidence of interests between them, but nevertheless it isn't difficult to find totally different perspectives on history, obvious examples being the anti-war material produced by French clerics, jurists, and philosophers in the Hundred Years War.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Charlemagne's conquests are impressive. Though I'm not sure of his tactics.

El Cid's tactics and achievement's are impressive.

Richard the Lionheart's tactics and strategies are brilliant yet his achievements are not.

If Belisarius can be included then certainly Justinian the Great?

[The Stranger]

Well, actually it was mostly clerics who wrote history, not the landed nobility or knightly military class. There was obviously shared membership and coincidence of interests between them, but nevertheless it isn't difficult to find totally different perspectives on history, obvious examples being the anti-war material produced by French clerics, jurists, and philosophers in the Hundred Years War.

you are right, my bad.

[cutepuppy]

Adolf IV Von Schauenburg

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Charlemagne's conquests are impressive. Though I'm not sure of his tactics.

El Cid's tactics and achievement's are impressive.

Richard the Lionheart's tactics and strategies are brilliant yet his achievements are not.

If Belisarius can be included then certainly Justinian the Great?

How about Constantine the Great? OK...way off of the Middle Ages, I know... just thought I'd through that in there.

Any opinions on the great generals of Greece and Rome?...or the ancient world in general?

[KrooK]

Batu - Grandson of Genghis Khan.
Boleslaw Chrobry - first king of Poland, captured Bohemia, Slovakia, half of today East Germany and Kiev.
Boleslav Krzywousty - polish prince from XII century - won with HRE, captured Pomorze (todays its North-West part of Poland).