Gustavus Adolphus the Great

[KarlXII]

Why yes, daddy was Lithuanian. And his undefeated reputation is rather deserved, as it were. Unless you count his withdrawal after his failed march on Moscow, for lack of funds resulting in mutiny.

If his march on Moscow failed then he wasn't undefeated, was he?

Not trying to sound like a jerk, just have a hard time believing he was undefeated.

[Warmaster Horus]

I was sceptical too, but you can't exactly say he was defeated. Hannibal was undefeated until Zama, but he couldn't besiege Rome because of lack of troops/funds.

[Adrian II]

If his march on Moscow failed then he wasn't undefeated, was he?

Not trying to sound like a jerk, just have a hard time believing he was undefeated.

Defeated by circumstance, not by the enemy. Mind you, many generals of the period lost battles because of adverse circumstance, political intrigue and, most of all, shortage of funds. Wallenstein's proposition that 'war should pay for itself' wasn't very successful either...

[KrooK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz

Chodkiewicz never lost field battle. Sometimes (into Russia) he had to withdraw but not because he lost but because he had no chance for victory. But results of his raids were casefire into Divilno when Poland reconquered everything it lost into XV and XVI century.
To add something to article - into battle of Bialy Kamien (White Stone) his 2000 soldiers crushed 7000 Swedens. And there is mistake about Chocim. Polish-Cossack units were not into fortress but into more of less fortified camp next to fortress.

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.

[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

[lonewolf371]

If his march on Moscow failed then he wasn't undefeated, was he?

Not trying to sound like a jerk, just have a hard time believing he was undefeated.

Well, in this fashion you'd have to count Alexander as defeated, too. His army mutinied as he was attempting to conquer the Nanda (or was it the Maurya?) Empire.

As for undefeated generals, I heard that Wu Qi, from China's Warring States Period, was undefeated.