Which one and why?
In my opinion, you have to give credit to Hannibal. Yes, he lost at the very end, but he had many great victories using almost no resources. His homeland was bankrupt, plagued, poor and it's military was in complete horror.
Printable View
Which one and why?
In my opinion, you have to give credit to Hannibal. Yes, he lost at the very end, but he had many great victories using almost no resources. His homeland was bankrupt, plagued, poor and it's military was in complete horror.
hmmm not happy that you forgot Monash who actually cared for his troops, planned out each phase and made sure that all the preparations were in place he was willing to change the day just to ensure victory...
There are dozens if not hundreds of valid nominees that have been omitted. But, a poll can only hold ten options at best. You'll just have to choose from his list, or write in a nominee in a post. Personally, I'm not voting, because there's at least a half dozen names I put above all the nominees. But, that doesn't invalidate his list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
:( You just can't fit this list into a poll...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ary_commanders
@OP Why Adolf? He was the country's leader, his generals did the real military strategizing.
Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian should be in this list.
As should be Zhukov, Konev, Chuikov and Rokossovsky.
From the list, I would choose Alexander the Great for being able to do so much with very limited resources. I'm not really sure Adolf Hitler or Otto von Bismarck were actually generals though, unless they've done things i'm not aware of.
Why Rommel?Quote:
Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian should be in this list.
Likewise, but why any of these?Quote:
As should be Zhukov, Konev, Chuikov and Rokossovsky.
adolf and bismarck were politicians not generals
Rommel - He was a superb leader, who outwitted the Allied generals on more than one occasion. Hitler was the real stumbling block for Axis expansion; he believed in his own superiority over his generals, when in fact he was an incompetent, stubborn, tactically-inept general. Rommel, von Manstein, von Rundstedt and Guderian were some of the best commanders, but they were hamstringed by Hitler's irritatingQuote:
Originally Posted by Ikeni
And yet it was the Allies with their superior intelligence who were constantly able to outwit Rommel too. Whenever a ship (even a single ship) would set sail for North Africa they always knew about it and British aircraft would end up sinking it; Rommel suspected a conspiracy because the British were so on target.Quote:
Rommel - He was a superb leader, who outwitted the Allied generals on more than one occasion.
Nonetheless, it was Hitler who was the reason why Fall Gelb ever happened. The German generals had doubts of its success but Hitler pushed through with it anyway, and as we all know he had France on its knees within six weeks. Admittedly, the traits you claim Hitler possessed are true, but stating that he was the stumbling block for Axis expansion is incorrect since he was actually the main individual who pioneered the creation of a new German empire, and thanks to him the Axis possessed control of practically the entire of Europe.Quote:
Hitler was the real stumbling block for Axis expansion; he believed in his own superiority over his generals, when in fact he was an incompetent, stubborn, tactically-inept general.
I can understand why you say Manstein, Rundstedt and Guderian, but with Rommel I always become suspicious of people who state he was a fantastic general because they tend to be Rommel fanboys.Quote:
Rommel, von Manstein, von Rundstedt and Guderian were some of the best commanders, but they were hamstringed by Hitler's irritating
My choice for this poll would be Napoleon Bonaparte.
Specifically, I will concentrate upon the Italian theatre of war from 1796-1797 CE and the years from 1798-1802 CE.
During the period from 1796-1797 C.E, the French government [Composed of a Five-Man Executive Directory with the nominal head being the Executive Director Paul Barras; and the Council of Ancients and the Council of 500 that composed the legislative branch] formed the grand strategic plan of a tripartite [Three system] classificatory military scheme: a French "Army of the Rhine" to cross over into the Holy Roman Empire [German states, either feudal or allodial], a French "Army of the Alps" [Led by General Kellerman to help secure the lines of communication, act as a reinforcing factor to areas of exposure and disruption, and to provide use of interior lines or the aspect of concentrating at the decisive point in areas of great vulnerability] and a French "Army of Italy" led by General Napoleon Bonaparte. The French grand strategic plan was for a major military offensive within the Rhineland so as to establish hegemonic control on certain bordering German states to act as peripheral/buffer states. The French Army of Italy was relegated to a secondary role by the central French government.
During the Italian Campaign of 1796-1797 C.E, Napoleon Bonaparte fought against the Piedmontese, the Austrians, Italian forces and local British garrisons alongside key coastal points. The Piedmontese [Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia] were situated in Piedmont, Savoy, Sardinia, etc whilst the Austrians held hegemonic control over the Duchy of Milan, areas in Lombardy, the Tyrol, Carinthia and Carniola. The Milanese as under Austrian Habsburg [specifically the House of Habsburg-Lorraine] hegemony fought against the French before its defeat and capture; the Papal States were unfavorable to the growing strength of the French due to fears of the loss of political equipollence and thereby the encouragment of political instability and turmoil; and the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily which held the key ports of Naples, Palermo, Lilybaeum, Syracuse, etc.
Napoleon Bonaparte, General-in-Chief of the French "Army of Italy", concentrated his forces at the decisive point and exploited gaps between the Piedmontese and Austrians thereby attacking each enemy piece meal and establishing local superiority led to the division between the Piedmontese and Austrians, the disintegration of the Allied supply routes, etc. Since the Piedmontese and Austrians were scattered, Napoleon Bonaparte divided the two allied armies by exploiting gaps and managed to achieve the surrender of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia that ceded Piedmont, Savoy, etc to the French. With the Austrian retreat, Napoleon Bonaparte captured the city of Milan and its ducal lands and transformed the city of Milan into his central base of operations. After further defeating the Austrians and threatening the Austrian capital of Vienna with stunning success and the great loss of Austrian hegemonic control in Northern Italy, the treaty of "Campo Formio" followed. Only the Venetian Republic in Northern Italy remained autonomous from French rule. The demarcation line between the French and the Austrian Empire [Composed mainly of Austria, Bohemia and Hungary] was alongside the line of Venetia, Carniola, Carinthia and the Tyrol. In addition, Tuscany became a dependant state of the French; the Papal States or the "Marches of St. Peter" was occupied by the French; and the Kingdom of Naples was isolated from allied nations within the Italian Peninsula.
During the War of the Second Coalition [1798-1802 CE], the French temporarily lost hegemony within the majority of the Italian Peninsula with only a foothold in Piedmont, Savoy and Genoa. The brilliant Italian campaign of Alexander Suvorov in which the French general Joubert was killed in battle as well as the defeats of French generals Massena and Macdonald resulted in a demoralization of the French forces stationed in Italy. However, in the twin battles of Hohenlinden: 1800 C.E [led by French general Jean-Victor Marie Moreau] and Marengo: 1800 C.E [led by First/Premier Citizen-Consul Napoleon Bonaparte], the French were victorious and led to a reversal in Allied fortune that had followed them in the War of the Second Coalition.
I added Hitler just for the contreversy...
Otto von Bismarck played both roles.
Also, I can't have 6 World War II generals and have the remainder 4 being other people. I can only have 10.
My choice for this poll would be Napoleon Bonaparte, followed by Genghis Khan.
Napoleon Bonaparte succeeded in many battles, with little to no experience. However, I do not believe he deserves the rank of Greatest General of All Time, due to his arrogence.
That position should go to Scipio Africanus The Elder, who, in my opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Managing to not only reverse the tactics Hannibal used on him, but to completely crush Hannibal by the use of those tactics. Also, under him the Pre-Marian legions gained unpresidented skills and tactics, not ever before seen in the ancient world (to my knowledge).
~John
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was a brilliant leader and tactician. In my opinion he was way better than Patton. It is a shame Hitler poisoned Rommel(when he didnt even participate in the plot.) With the limited resources Rommel had he inflicted alot of damage against the Allied forces. BUt he wasnt a choice up there. I dont think Adolf Hitler should be up there since it was most of the generals who did the dirty work. Hitler only ****ed things up. If you put in charge the German Generals I believe they could have won.
On a side note Robert E Lee was the best general of the civil war. The north predicted that the civil war would be over in a matter of months. The south was outnumbered in everything 7-1
Dylan, the Prussian civilian sphere was represented by Otto von Bismarck while the military sphere was represented by Helmuth von Moltke the Elder.
The development of a professional core of military officers and the division between political figures and able, professional military commanders occurred due to the nascent civil/military dichotomy that was centered around the struggles between Otto von Bismarck and Moltke the Elder or the civil/political and the military.
I think you must look at the role of a general...a better poll would be to split a field general category from a organizational/strategic planning general....
Patton in the field*
Ike for organization/strategic planning*
Of course I am not saying those are the best for those categories...but they are recent and well known examples.
Either way...Maybe defining what makes a good general for purposes of the post would create better focused debate due to how each situation can differ drastically.
From the top of my head, I would recommend the notable military figures of:
Pre-Grecian/Middle Eastern:
Sargon I 'the Great' [The Akkadian/Sargonic Empire lasted from 2350-2230 BCE]
Tiglath-Pileser III [Neo-Assyrian]
Nebuchadnezzar II [Neo-Babylonian]
Cyrus I 'the Great' [The Achaemenid Dynasty of Persia]
Classical Greek and Hellenistic Era:
Miltiades
Alcibiades
Cimon
Themistocles
Agesilaus
King Gelon of Syracuse and Gela [Founder of the Deinomenid Dynasty]
Epaminondas of Thebes
King Pyrrhus I of Epirus
Seleucus I Nicator
Antigonus I Monopthalmus
Alexander III of Macedon
Demetrius I Aniketos [Indo-Greek Kingdom]
Menander I Soter [Indo-Greek Kingdom]
Carthaginian:
Hannibal Barca
Roman and Byzantine:
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Elder
Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Gaius Julius Caesar
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
Princeps Trajan
Flavius Belisarius
Basileus Heraclius
Nikephorous II Phocas
John I Tzimisces
Basil II Bulgaroctonus
Ottoman Turkish:
Mehmed II 'the Conqueror'
Suleiman I 'the Magnificent'
Oriental/Asiatic:
Chandragupta Maurya
Subutai
Tamerlane
Here's what I find a little disheartening, almost all of those Generals were offensive generals, the kind that constantly expanded, attack other people and so on. Do we have any Generals that were superb, but always on the defensive? The ones that never sought battle, but when confronted, would arise to the occasion? I unfortunantely don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure we have some excellent defensive Generals?
Ghost why wait for them to come to your land rape and murder your countery. You bring the battle to them. The greatest defence is a good offence or however that saying goes.
What is greatness?
Most of the names on this list were indeed great men. Very few were great generals.
I'm skipping right over Isabella here and treating the question seriously. The goal of any warrior, any truly great general, should be to win the following peace. Alexander's empire collapsed on his death; Napoleon had his Waterloo; Hitler (even if we grant him generalship) ended up slow-roasting. On this list, Bolivar is the only one that won the peace; most of the former colonial nations of South America owe him an immense debt of gratitude.
I'd put Lee in the #2 spot; as a general, his record is nearly unparalleled, and the peace he won was a decent one.
wait what peace did lee win? I thought he lost... The civil war had a great number of casualties too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
You guys forgot all about Cao Cao the great Emperor Wu Wei
whatcha got against the chinese?
I'm going to have to agree with you. Not to mention this whole thread walks the fine line on "politics" in general, and a lot of people start with talking about those two and it gets heated and ugly very quickly. Just a reminder to keep it clean and polite folks and we'll leave this up for some excellent debates.Quote:
Originally Posted by *jdm*
...And I chose Alexander the Great again because he was able to triumph with such little at his disposal.
Robert E. Lee was clearly the best general on the list
he fought the overwhelming zerg rush from the Union and didnt afraid of anything
lol zerg rush
There's a four-way tie.
they replaced hitler lol
I am going to go with Flavius Belisarius. During Justinian's reconquest Belisarius fought and defeated vastly superior armies in Europe. If it wasn't for him being recalled to fight against Persia he likely would have taken back the entire Roman Empire with his vastly superior tactics.
Then, most every Byzantine general was great, the entire nation had a very good mindset for long term survival and raised some pretty darn amazing commanders and scientists.
I disagree with that last statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbstractAngel
Alexander The Great had alot to work with.
He had the near total loyalty of the macedonian people (after he removed his chief competitors), he had the army that was created by Phillip the II (or atleast, redesigned by him). And he was facing a vastly inferior (in both training, and equipment, not in numbers) force throughout his entire campaign in Persia. Not to mention, many times, he chose the battle-ground to fight on (ground that favored his troops, more often then not).
And, in addition, he was smart. But I disagree with him having nothing to work with, that is a common misassumption (in my view).
~John
Normally I would elaborate on my points, but I can't really be bothered right now so i'll be short and to the point.
Not really. He used practically the same army throughout his campaign, just adding more and more local auxiliaries to it to make up for Macedonian losses throughout his advance. The Persians as well had the Immortals which were the elite core of the army as well as heavily armoured mercenaries such as the Greeks they employed which would fight in their traditional phalanx.Quote:
Alexander The Great had alot to work with.
He had the near total loyalty of the macedonian people (after he removed his chief competitors), he had the army that was created by Phillip the II (or atleast, redesigned by him). And he was facing a vastly inferior (in both training, and equipment, not in numbers) force throughout his entire campaign in Persia.
Did he? So at Granicus, Issus and at the Hydaspes it was part of his plan to have to advance across a river while the enemy was camped on the other side? You certainly can't say the same with Gaugamela either, since Darius precisely chose to fight there to try and make full advantage of his resources.Quote:
Not to mention, many times, he chose the battle-ground to fight on (ground that favored his troops, more often then not).
I don't know, maybe some people rather prefer peace over war. There's always the reluctant warrior, the one only prodded into action by other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
Also the best offense is a good defense :pirate:
That quote is frankly not a good comeback because I can obviously just go around and twist it backwards to suit my means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
I think this could become a never ending debate. I agree he was very smart and did amazing work with what he had. As for the armies at his disposal, it's much like when the Germans attacked Russia, the further in they went, the more tired, worn, and dwindled the army was. Even with the odd recruit along the way, 1 battle would be hard on the resources he had. Then you factor 15 separate campaigns top that let alone the actual battles within each of those campaigns, even with replenishing his troops, it's a little unbelievable what he pulled off! It's just incredible to me is all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikeni
Yes, the romance behind Alexander's Asiatic conquests is truly great. The battles at the Granicus River, the battle of Issus, Siege of New Tyre, Siege of Gaza, Guagamela, his multiple engagements with the Scythic tribes alongside the Jaxartes River and the battle of Hydapses against King Porus are examples of Alexander's tactical proficiency and great strategic insight. However, many have apotheosized Alexander to a degree that I find to be repulsive.
One could say that Alexander's legacy to the world was the sheer chaos, disorder and incessant wars that arose after his death in 323 BCE in the Diadochian conflicts or the Wars of the Successors with the battles of Paraitacene, Gabiene, Gaza, Salamis, Rhodes, Ipsus and Corupedium. Alexander is irrefragably a military commander of the highest order or the first degree; however, Alexander lacked the political acumen to consolidate his gains and to establish a stable foundation for his colossal empire. Again, the empire of Alexander III fragmented on his death in 323 BCE [Ptolemies, Seleucids, Antigonids, Attalids] with the lack of a designated heir or successor and the adherence to a satrapial structure which would eventually lead to internal revolts and dissensions among the governors or satraps.
Instead, Alexander III should have consolidated his gains in Mesopotamia, Media and Susiana as opposed to the continuation of his frenzied conquests in the Orient. If Alexander III ceased his Asiatic conquests and became content with the subjugated territories in the greater portion of Anatolia/Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt, Cyrenaica [A dependent state], Mesopotamia and Media, he could have consolidated his gains in the regions of Atropatene, Adiabene and Gordyene and fully subdued all the regions in Anatolia as he had not yet subdued all the minor or petty kingdoms in the Anatolian region or the kingdoms of Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia which were autonomous and were not placed under his sovereignty. Alexander III could have formed a stable and enduring empire if he did not extend his hegemony deeper into the Orient. A highly stable though smaller Greco-Macedonian Empire in Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Mesopotamia, Media and Susiana would have halted the Romans in their eventual conquests.
im sorry but why do i not see SHAKA ZULU in this he was a great ruthless military mind who expanded his territory by 75% in 3 years>?
Shaka was excellent at expansion, but he was a militarist king, not a general. His talents were in Force Majeure politics and leadership. However, his downfall was something only an ineffective strategist would have permitted. I'd recommend "Washing of the Spears" as a decent history of the Zulu wars.
There was a minimal - indeed, a nearly nominal - force that went in to wipe him out at the end. Despite their modern weapons, they could easily have been defeated using an indirect strategy.
---------
Sorry; I'd missed the earlier question about Lee. The answer is that the manner of his fight and the high discipline of his troops caused even his opponents to honor him and his people. The surrender at Appomattox was brilliant on both sides; I honor Chamberlain's role especially.
The Zulu's were certainly NOT modern, depending in the context. Compared to the worldn, not even close, but in the African sense, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
I think we have to agree that Shaka or "Chaka" was a good leader/general, but certainly not one of the best in history.
Perhaps I was unclear; I intended to convey the idea that the small force had modern arms, though he was in the end assassinated by his brothers with spears. Shaka himself discounted the effectiveness of firearms against a rapid spear charge - and at Isandlwhana, under Cesewayo, this was demonstrated to have some merit.
Still, while he did demonstrate a talent for logistics and organization, and while he virtually invented large-unit tactics for his culture, his strategic ability was mediocre. He tended toward the direct approach, often (though hardly always) succeeding through either audacity or weight of numbers. His weakness was an inability to adapt in the face of a new type of foe, as exemplified by the Voortrekker.
In the end, it was this inability to adapt that prompted his betrayal and assassination.
I'm curious why nobody has launched into an impasisoned description of Sir John Monash, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath - an early proponent of combined arms and synchronized attack, and an organizational genius capable of delivering hot meals to frontline troops throughout the worst of the late battles of the First World War.
EDIT: Apologies, Digger; your entry was so short I'd missed it on first reading.