cRPG
Off Topic => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: Chosen1 on July 17, 2014, 07:19:12 am
-
Who in your opinion were the best generals in each time period, and the best general overall?
My opinions:
Ancient times: Alexander the Great
Medieval times: Saladin
Late Renaissance to 19th Century: Napoleon
Modern: Erwin Rommel
I think the greatest general in history was Napoleon.
(Feel free to list more time periods if you want.)
-
Ghengis Khan, hands down. Dominated everybody that was in the way. Dan Carlin did a great podcast on him and I've been a fan ever since.
-
Alexander Suvorov
-
Alexander Suvorov
He created one of the french slogan army :
"What is difficult in training will become easy in a battle"
(we are still using it)
He never lost a battle. Even if to be honest, his battles never were ultra hard / impossible to win.
Maybe luck, or probably he was wise enough to know when he must engage.
In my honest opinion, winning battles isn't the only point which must be consider if you want to evaluate a general.
How he improved the military tactics, what kind of maneuver he made in which circonstancies he fought and won/lost, etc...
I am sadly not good enough to name a general yet.
-
Ah, so that's why the French are so good at running away -- their army does a lot of jogging.
-
havent we had like 12 of these to derail already? :P
-
Georgy Zhukov for World War II
If you take into account the technology of the era, the vast distances and the fact that it all went down in 13 years, Alexander's exploits are damn impressive from a logistical point of view. Makes one wonder what he could have accomplished if he had more time.
-
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk simple as that he defended his country against countless countries.. :wink:
-
calling military figures "great" has a questionable ring to me, usually they were (and certainly are today) just bigger pawns pushing smaller pawns around in the interest of the hidden powers of their time... But anyways - some of them certainly were better at it than others.
I second Rommel as the choice for modern times.
Not so much because of his military genius, or what he was fighting for - but for his style of leadership.
The guy had balls, did genuinely care about his men (as much as that is possible in the horrors of war), kept the warfare in Africa relatively clean (ignoring several direct orders from the fucking "Führer"), and did not hide in some command post most of the time, but was in the line of fire more often than not.
Too bad he had that Suebian accent, LOL
-
An admiral not a general, but military history's greatest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-stopped-nuclear-war
-
Spurdo Spärde
-
Khalid_ibn_al-Walid For 2 reasons 1) He is 1 of 2 generals that never lost a battle. 2) He played a big part is the building of the muslim world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid
-
John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and Wellington were pretty damn good British generals :P
-
Khalid_ibn_al-Walid For 2 reasons 1) He is 1 of 2 generals that never lost a battle. 2) He played a big part is the building of the muslim world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid
History is full of generals who have never lost a battle. Thousands of them alive right now.
-
a) Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barka
b) Tran Hung Dao, Tamerlane, Saladin
c) Napolean Bonaparte, Jan III Sobieski, Horatio Nelson
d) Erich Von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Hans Guderian (my personal opinion - fu :wink: )
Tran Hung Dao - Under his command, Dai Viet (currently Vietnam) armies defeated 2 major Mongolian Invasions in 1285 and 1287. His victories over the mighty Mongol Yuan Dynasty under Kublai Khan are considerably the greatest military feats in world history.
Jan III Sobieski - Grand Hetman of the Kingom of Poland, extremely talented and popular, finally elected as a King of Poland. After a short research I quite sure that he didn't lose any battle. Most important battle he fought is Vienna 1683 - 70 000 of Polish-German soldiers defeated 300 000 Turkish soldiers who were trying to capture city of Vienna. It was his most famous victory, after this battle the Ottoman supremacy in southeastern Europe ended. The most important part of battle was probably charge of Polish hussars (some historians say it was the greatest cavalry charge in history) who smashed Ottoman forces and captured their enormous camp. Nevertheless I have to give some credit to artillery and defenders of the city who also contributed a lot. Battle of Vienna was truly one of greatest victories of European forces over Muslims in history and one of the most important for the fate of the world.
-
Three Mongolian invasions, Wikipedia says.
-
Late Renaissance to 19th Century: Napoleon Frederic II The Great
Modern: Erwin Rommel Manstein
-
300 000 Turkish soldiers who were trying to capture city of Vienna.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't even logistically possible at the time. Keep in mind the typical overinflation of combatants in historical records.
-
I admire Napoleon because of his universal capabilities to manage a whole empire while conquering Europe and winning countless of battles.
Everyone who has analysed his battles and their logistical background couldn't argue that, dispite of his disastrous defeat in Russia, he was one of histories greatest generals.
-
I'm pretty sure that wasn't even logistically possible at the time. Keep in mind the typical overinflation of combatants in historical records.
That is certainly possible in the far east.
-
I admire Napoleon because of his universal capabilities to manage a whole empire while conquering Europe and winning countless of battles.
Everyone who has analysed his battles and their logistical background couldn't argue that, dispite of his disastrous defeat in Russia, he was one of histories greatest generals.
Great strategist, overrated tactician.
-
Great strategist, overrated tactician.
I think it's the other way around :) He made dumb strategic decisions, but he was the best tactician in history. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt
-
I think it's the other way around :) He made dumb strategic decisions
I'd say decisions about attacking Spain and RUssia were taken on the political level, not strategic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt
Yes, Aurestedt was great victory of marshal Davout and fucked up decisions of Napoleon who exposed Davout against overwhelming forces of Prussian army. In battle of Jena Napoleon had more troops than his enemy - can't be bothered to look for a source right now but as far as I remember Ordre de Bataille on wikiepedia is wrong.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz
Compare this battle to these two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuthen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
An example of the place that Frederick holds in history as a ruler is seen in Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw the Prussian king as the greatest tactical genius of all time; after Napoleon's victory of the Fourth Coalition in 1807, he visited Frederick's tomb in Potsdam and remarked to his officers, "Gentlemen, if this man was still alive I would not be here".
PS. I, of course, don't try to say that Napoleon wasn't great tactician :wink:
-
Both were great generals, no question. But saying Napoleon was an overrated tactician is just not true, in almost every battle his tactics have been superior and even after his retreat from russia he managed to win at least tactically against greater armies.
He was both a great tactician and strategist, though the question of great strategist depends on time lapse, was invading russia a bad strategy? yes, but on the other hand his logistical ingenuity proved him to be a good strategist again and again.
-
saying Napoleon was an overrated tactician is just not true,
Once again, I don't say he wasn't great general, but when we put him in a position of the greatest general in the history according to me it's overrating his achievements. I don't see many - any? - big battles which Napoleon has won against decidedly superior forces, in most battles he had more or less the same amount of troops as his enemies while french, post-revolutionary army was much better than the troops of coalition's armies, trained and commanded à la ancien regime.
-
Three Mongolian invasions, Wikipedia says.
Yeah, but first wasn't really big.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't even logistically possible at the time. Keep in mind the typical overinflation of combatants in historical records.
you're probably right, best to compare with data from Turkish sources, to add to our numbers and divide by two :)
Once again, I don't say he wasn't great general, but when we put him in a position of the greatest general in the history according to me it's overrating his achievements. I don't see many - any? - big battles which Napoleon has won against decidedly superior forces, in most battles he had more or less the same amount of troops as his enemies while french, post-revolutionary army was much better than the troops of coalition's armies, trained and commanded à la ancien regime.
as usual kurwa smartest :rolleyes:
-
Not a General but an Admiral
Thomas Cochrane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane,_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald
-
Ancient time : Xenophon , maybe not the "best", but interesting.
Medieval : Duguesclin
Napoleon
XX ; Ariel Sharon
-
No mention for Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Condé? He's a textbook 'great general'.
-
I admire Napoleon because of his universal capabilities to manage a whole empire while conquering Europe and winning countless of battles.
Everyone who has analysed his battles and their logistical background couldn't argue that, dispite of his disastrous defeat in Russia, he was one of histories greatest generals.
Perhaps the most famous Hidden Hand FreeMason.
-
Hannibal Saladin and Napoleon.
Alexander was a retard in the right place at the right time, his father was 10x better and there were dozens of better greek generals than him.
-
Hannibal Saladin and Napoleon.
Alexander was a retard in the right place at the right time, his father was 10x better and there were dozens of better greek generals than him.
Yes probably he was stupid. I have no idea and i don't know enough his life to say anything.
But what is certain is that HE is the one who get all the prestige & glory for the conquests.
So maybe he wasn't a good general (i have no clue) but he was clearly smart to enough to receive all the prestige & glory from it. :)
-
ofc it's a bit exaggerated, but let's face it, he fought against nobody (persian empire was diying, i would have liked to see him against darius or cyrus persia, maybe things would have been different; greece ofc was already dead because they're fggts) and his incredible army was prepared by philly the second: as i've already said, right place and right time. also gg alexander, your empire couldn't last 1 second after your death, amazing job gg wp.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
The Successor kingdoms lasted for hundreds of years. The "middle-east" and eastern medditteranean were culturally greek from Sicily to Bactria. You may have heard of it, this little thing called the hellenistic period. The cultural and linguistic legacy lasted up until the rise of Islam. They were the last chunk of the Roman empire and outlasted it by, again, hundreds of years in the form of the byzantines.
Not to mention Alexander is revered as the epitome of the conquering hero in literally every primary source regardless of origin, be it roman, persian, arab, greek, etc.. And that's without going into the deification by his own men while he was still alive. After he died his corpse and regalia were set up during every of his officer's meetings because the presence of his memory was the only thing that could momentarily keep them from each other's throats. Even once it broke into full-out war between the Successors Alexander's corpse was still an item of mystical power and authority over which they fought over.
TL;DR you're demonstrably wrong on every single thing you've said.
-
bah please sicily and part of italy were considered magna grecia even before that fggt came out; same goes for other territories: most of conquers alexander made were already greek culturally and most of the ones that were not did not change much except for the name officially; egyptian territories mantained the egyptian culture more or less and persian territories maintained a persian culture more or less and so on. actually it was more him being fascinated by the cultures he conquered. as for the respect shown to him ofc they sjowed him respect; they fought and led under his command and they did conquer what they conquered, nobody could argue that but that doesn't change the fact he fought against nobody and his army (and campaign too for certain aspects) were prepaired by his father.
also the fact he was a fggt is not possibly counterable if it wasn't for the fact that he was a massive fggt. and the fact his empire got divided after his death doesn't mean it survived, actually could mean the opposite.
-
Wow dar, what is up with the massive hate boner towards Alexander?
:mrgreen:
-
honestly I don't know :l I just don't like him getting credots for things he didn't do or were easier than how they're believed to be. I think he is the only historical person I hate probably
-
Well there is one thing. He did conquer most of the known world. I suppose yea, his father was the one who set up the army, but i highly doubt his army was so strong that it could steamroll over everybody without any actual leadership and guidance. Also i highly doubt macedonia had the strongest army ever at that time and that alexanders enemies didnt have anything. Someone had to have a severe inpact. If not alexander than someone else. Also about his empire collapsing right after his death. He had enough time to conquer, not make sure it would maintain and govern. Unlike Charles the Great, who spent half his life invading and other half basically governing what he ruled.
-
Rommel was no brilliant general, he was just lucky to have completely incompetent people opposing him. Gambler who was risking a lot, and was very lucky from time to time. People just forget about his disastrous decisions, or unusually high casualty rate in his units, mostly because of his leadership and too risky approach.
Manstain was the best German general by far. If we are speaking about doctrines than it HAS to be Guderian, who wasn't a bad field commander either. Also, he was one of the very few who engaged himself in shouting matches with albert.
I also think history was rather unfair towards Model, probably because he was a devout chocolate chip cookiei. Master of defense, of salvaging what can be salvaged after disasterous decisions of his predecesors.
On the allied side, Patton was definately one of the great. But overall, German senior officers, especially in first two thirds of the war, were mostly superior to allied and Russians.
-
Well there is one thing. He did conquer most of the known world. I suppose yea, his father was the one who set up the army, but i highly doubt his army was so strong that it could steamroll over everybody without any actual leadership and guidance. Also i highly doubt macedonia had the strongest army ever at that time and that alexanders enemies didnt have anything. Someone had to have a severe inpact. If not alexander than someone else. Also about his empire collapsing right after his death. He had enough time to conquer, not make sure it would maintain and govern. Unlike Charles the Great, who spent half his life invading and other half basically governing what he ruled.
nobody argues the fact he conquered most of the known world and led his army, but i argue the fact it was as hard as people are trying to show; his army was prepared by his father, his army was undoubtedly the strongest, highly prepared, heavily and well equipped, if i remember correctly macedonian hoplites had even longer spears than greek's ones, his enemy, if not anything, were still really close to shit (persia was a long dead empire, which army never really came out as outstanding if not for the number, greeks after peloponnesian war never really came out again, and, eventho he had to "reconquer" them, the greeks were conquered by philip) and about time yes, i can't argue with that, but i believe that a weak man, after conquering persian and its gold would have done what alexander did, followed his lust, while a strong man (not necessarly great) would have stopped and started ruling over his empire;
i always believe a contextualization is need everytime and, yes, he was leading his army, but that's a thing that many good generals could have done (as i said he was there at the right time and at the right place), therefore it's not something that qualifies you as great; and for sure keeping your army fighting new enemies and conquering territories recklessly until your very army mutiny and force you to go back surely doesn't either.
before people could rightly argue with the fact that napoleon too didn't stop when he should have so i shouldn't consider him a great general/leader, he's great because he faced certain nations as russia spain sweden portugual netherland prussia england and austria in his time :/
-
Well maybe you should stop painting giant neon "THIS IS A BAIT" signs all over your baits, then.
-
Hannibal Barca , Alexander the Great , Ghengis Khan , Timur (=Tamerlan?) , Tiryaki Hasan Pasha (my favourite Ottoman! :D) , For WW1 ; My vote goes to Mustafa Kemal,not because I am a Turk, because his role is very big in Çanakkale Wars , and that was one of the bloodiest parts of the war. Also the only victory of Ottoman Empire in the war. .For WW2 , I have no idea but, whoever came up with the Blitzkrieg thing must be a good general.
I don't think Napoleon was a "great" general because he made some stupid mistakes.
-
I don't think Napoleon was a "great" general because he made some stupid mistakes.
There is a difference between strategy & tactic.
He was a great military tactician, but he made some really bad mistakes in strategy.
-
There is a difference between strategy & tactic.
He was a great military tactician, but he made some really bad mistakes in strategy.
His ego got to him and caused his own downfall, among other things
-
Mehmed the Conqueror
-
Subutai (primary military strategist of Genghis and Ögedei Khan) for sure.
He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.
He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.
let's get back to "generals" part of this question,
Ancient times: Alexander, Scipio Africanus, Hannibal, Attila
Medieval times: Subutai/Genghis, Tamerlane, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Yue Fei
Gunpowder: Gustav II, Selim I, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Jan Žižka, John Churchill
Imperial: Napoleon, Sir Arthur Wellesley, Alexander Suvorov, Thomas J. Jackson, Ahmad Shah Durrani
Modern: Erwin Rommel, Erich von Manstein, Heinz Guderian, George S. Patton, Georgy Zhukov, Mustafa Kemal
-
Ancient: Alexander, Cyrus
Medieval: Martel, Subutai
Early Modern: Adolphus, Cromwell, Tokugawa
1800 - 1871: Napoleon, Wellington, Moltke the Elder
1871 - 1919: Auda, Nogi, Falkenhayn
WW2: Guderian, Yamashita, Zhukov